This is an archive of past discussions about World War II casualties. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Ukraine and Belarus must be separated from Poland and USSR
Most of 3 mln civilian deaths in 1939 boundaries Poland are due to deaths of Ukrainians and Belarussians (almost all of them), and USSR casualities are mainly by these two noble and humble nations too (nearly 25 mln of Ukrainians (19 mln) and Belarussians (4 mln) perished).
Polish nation casualties are far much underestimated (should be ~200 000 killed)
In the boundaries of 1939 Poland has 40% occupied lands in 1920 (nearly 200 000 km2 of Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine), so the number of the losses in these lands must be counted for those three countries and not for Poland...moreover 3 000 000 jews dead is the nonsence (3 mln was the total population of jews in those occupied by Poland non-polish lands and Poland, but much less was killed because nearly 2 mln were sent to Russia in the years between 1939 and 1941, so if we exclude those lands and after WWII occupied Prussian-Pomeranian lands by Poland, we get much lower polish nationality deaths ranging between 100 000 and 300 000 only!!!).
2,2 mln of killed Lithuanians of Prussia is not included
2,2 mln Lithuanians and mixed Lithuanians (called old Prussians) were killed by poles and russians during the last year of WWII. Russians killed 1 mln civilians and poles killed 1,2 mln Lithuanians in Prussia-Pomerania!!! The rest were forced to abandon their homes and were sent to Germany. Hitler didn't allow those Lithuanians to retreat to Germany while german nationality was allowed to do so!!!! All Lithuanians-Prussians were killed so the percentage is highest in Prussia - 100% killed Prussians-Lithuanians it was the first TOTAL EXTERMINATION OF ETHNIC GROUP OF ANY NATION IN THE WORLD BY POLISH AND RUSSIAN DEGENERATES...NEVER FORGET THESE SLAVS ATTROCITIES...NEVER EVER!!!!
You must be wrong on the number of dead civilians. The lowest estimates I had heard about
before were 2.100.000 and the number go up to 6.300.000 dead civilians. We know that
at least 1.100.000 were killed by Russian soldiers when ethnically cleansing the east.
Even the higher numbers at the corresponding German wikipedia page
Post war German civilian deaths due to the expulsion of Germans after World War II are not included with World War Two Casualties. A 1958 West German government study estimated 2.3 million civilians perished during the post war expulsions.83,26 However, Rűdiger Overmans points out that there are only about 500,000 confirmed deaths of German civilians in eastern Europe, the balance being a demographic estimate, Overmans believes that new research on the number of expulsion deaths is needed.6,298-299[1]. A more recent study published by the German government in 1989 estimated the death toll at about 635,000. (270,000) as the result of Soviet war crimes,(160,000) during the expulsion of Germans after World War II and (205,000) in the Forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union --Woogie10w (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
German Wikipedia is using forty years old figures. An estimate in 1989 by the German Government was 500,000 civilian deaths in Eastern Europe--Woogie10w (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[2].
The total excess deaths in Germany , within 1937 borders, from May 1939 until Oct 1946 were 6.9 million. The breakout is as follows Military dead 4.5 million : Civilian deaths c.400,000 killed in air raids; 100-200,000 dead in the Berlin Battle; 400,000 killed by Soviets and Polish in Prussia & Silesia; 600,000 victims of Nazi terror and 800,000 post war deaths due to famine and disease(mostly in the Soviet Zone) In addition the ethnic Germans suffered 530,000 military deaths and 230,000 civilians killed by the Soviets, Poles and Czechs. Austria lost 260,000 in the military and 140,000 civilians.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Exact Canadian numbers
I was provided with the complete Canadian Virtual War Memorial database from the Second World War. I imported the data into a mysql database and am able to give these exact figures:
Me again. http://www.wwii.ca/cvwm_db/ ... I run wwii.ca, the Virtual Memorial database will be apart of the updated site that is currently being worked on.
There are copyright restrictions on this material according to the E mail you received from Veterans Affairs Canada, the link cannot open. We need to know what these copyright restrictions are. Also your zip file links can't be opened. --Woogie10w (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Those links you posted are worthless, they do not include the database of Canadian war dead. You posted incomplete files that were not saved properly.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The CWGC Debt of Honour Register [3] lists the names of 45,364 Canadians who died in the war including the Merchant Navy but excluding Newfoundlanders.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The CWGC Debt of Honour Register [4] is an example of a source that is verifiable and reliable. If you drop in Canada 1939-47 the website tells us that there are 45,364 names of war dead. You need to tweek your Canadian data to make it presentable as a source, as it stands now, it a candidate for swift deletion--Woogie10w (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I provided you with screen captures of the program I used to view the records [and export them for use online in a mysql database]. I won't post the actual database because of the copyright ... if you NEED the file to verify you'll have to get it from them to see for yourself if you can't use my website as adequate proof.
I'm just giving you the numbers, NOT posting the entire database here on Wikipedia. Right now I'm working on moving the contents online, so you can take a look then. ErikH6 (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The database is very interesting, it lists 46,998 Canadian WW2 dead. I noticed that some of the names were in the UK forces. The CWGC website lists 45,345 Canadian Armed Forces war dead not including the 1,058 Newfoundlanders[5]( 956 with UK forces and 102 in Canadian forces ) which brings our total to 46,301. The difference of 697 is Canadian nationals in the armed forces of other nations. You might want to ask Vetrans Affairs Canada why there is a difference between their database and the CWGC. Rather than rebuild Rome when constructing your website why not provide a link to the CWGC Debt of Honour Register and the CANADIAN VIRTUAL WAR MEMORIAL registry of war dead. The government search engines would be more practical for persons doing research on a family member who died in the war, your viewers would appreciate a link to a government website that has a search engine that can be accessed by name. My dad is buried here in a US military cemetery, I was able to find his grave listed online. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Go to page 436, see the entry for Ellis, Samuel on 18 April 1945, he was serving in the US Army at the time of his death. Your data base is not for the Canadian Armed forces but a listing of Canadian nationals who died in the various allied forces.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes. That what the page is for, no? As for searching, I plan on having that function on the site... search by name, date, time frames, month/year, regiment, cemetary etc. plus some interactive things (the ability to lay electronic "wreaths", VC / awards & citations for example). I just wanted to get it up with minimal functionality so you could check it out. ErikH6 (talk)
Your bottom line includes Canadians in the US Armed Forces, if you want only Canadian Armed Forces figures use the CWGC database. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Check this website [6] Newfoundland lost 102 men in the Canadian forces and 956 with the UK. So the exact total of war dead within modern Canadian borders is 45,345 Canadian Armed Forces(per CWGC) plus 956 Newfoundlanders in UK service for a grand total of 46,301.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Summing up estimates
All these numbers are estimates. We cannot add up estimates WITHOUT taking into account error margins and end up with meaningful results. When you add 1000000+-5% to 1000+-5% you'd better DISCARD the second number because it's totally lost in the error margin of the first number. And the main problem is -- we don't know those error margins. The only way to "quickfix" the main table is to specify a huge error margin on the total, like saying "over 60 millions" instead of "72,425,100". Three last digits of the total, for example, will make anyone with the slightest idea of how statistics work laugh. Still the table rows are very valuable, one just shouldn't add them up, they do not contain "numbers" in the exact sense. Alex Kapranoff10:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It qiute clear that many of these figures are estimates and that the total is "about 72 million", we can only list the casualties from the sources and add down the numbers. To tweek the numbers and list our own estimates would be original research--Woogie10w11:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not original research, because 90% of other sources say that it's a bit over 60 million. Technically, what we have is original research as well because we don't have a source backing up that 72 mill. I agree with Kapranoff. (my apologies, I'm not trying to sound rude)I see that you have been dominating the information that goes into this article, but right now in all fairness its 2 v 1 on changing that. So if no one comes to your aid for agreement, we'll put a note in there about this.--LtWinters00:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
If you dispute a number of any one country please let us know, but you can't force 60 million on the bottom line because you think it's right. The sources here back up 72 million. Your "sources" are a list of numbers that add down to 55 million. The figures are not backed up with verifiable sources. The number gets bumped up to 72 million because of the 12 million war related famine deaths in Asia. In any case the reader is told that the numbers range from 50 to over 70 million and there is a link to the Matthew White list of casualty estimates.--Woogie10w01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that you read the footnotes and check the sources before you jump to conclusions. Take a trip to the library and check those sources, the figures are verifiable and they do add down to 72 million.--Woogie10w01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The range of estimates is made clear in the beginning of the article-World War II casualty statistics vary to a great extent. Estimates of World War II casualties range from 50 million to over 70 million[7]--Woogie10w01:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The lists of casualties from secondary sources that add up to 55-60 million do not tell the reader the source of the data, they are secondary sources not primary, these lists are from the 1970-80's and do not reflect the recent historical research.--Woogie10w01:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I took a look at the note how the estimates vary, and why ours varies. I think it's good now. --LtWinters02:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I want to point out that dutch east indies lists 4 million civil casualties just because it was in the dutch interesse to research the number. Comparable nrs of victims must to some extend be expected in nations like eg. the filipines, that despite japanese offences started there is not even mentioned in the totals. As such it shows how incredibly wicked our calculations of nrs of victims of war tend to be.77.251.34.32 (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Yugoslav casulties
I think it is rather problematic to take Mr. Zerjavic's book as a source. Not only that it is printed in 1993 during the civilian war, but it was disputed by the majority of historians from all ex-Yugoslav republics, including Croatia. Only in Jasenovac, more than 700,000 Serbs, Roma and Jews was ethnically cleansed during the Croatian genocide. This figure has never been challenged for half a century by any historian, foreign or domestic. According to official sources, WWII casualties in Yugoslavia were approximately 2,000,000. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.91.1.43 (talk) 08:29, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
The US Census Bureau did an analysis of the Yugosalav population losses in the war and concluded that losses were 1,067,000. The puffed up official figure of 2 million includes 600,000 Germans and Italians who left the country and 300,000 children who were not born because of the war.--Woogie10w10:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website has an informative section on Jasenovac. They report Although further research may yield more exact figures, current estimates place the number of victims murdered by the Ustaša in Jasenovac during World War II between 56,000 and 97,000[8]--Woogie10w01:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
According to the German Wikipedia there was in Yugoslavia about 1,300,000 civilian deaths and total between 1,600.000 and 1,800.000 deaths. As sources serve F.W. Putzger: Historical world atlas, Velhagen and Klasing, in 1969, and W. van Mourik: Balance of the war, Lekturama Rotterdam, in 1978. In the English Wikipedia as sources serve Croatian authors (like Vladimir Žerjavić) who have in general a problem to recognise war crime, just as it Serbian authors have on the subject like Srebrenica. I find this very doubtful.--Carski 11:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The US Census Bureau did an analysis of the Yugoslav population during the war and concluded losses were 1.1 million. You cannot count the emmigration of ethnic Germaans and Italians as war losses. The figure of 1.7 million Youoslav war dead cannot be backed up with an analysis of the population.--Woogie10w16:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The following quote is from the Website Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm[9]
Johan Wüscht, Population Losses in Yugoslavia during World War Two (1963), estimates a total population shortfall of 2,210,000 in the 1948 census. After accounting for emmigration (700,000) and a drop in births (423,000), he reckons the total number of deaths caused by the war and its aftermath to be 1,100,000. He also points out that adding up all the accusations of atrocities commited during the war far exceeds this calculated number of deaths, so one of them is wrong.--Woogie10w23:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
But there is the speech of 580.000 civilian deaths and as a (only?) source becomes Vladimir Žerjavić, which investigations from Yad Vashem and Simon Wiesenthal Centre are not recognised. Is it possible that Žerjavić, who also has come to wrong data to the victims during the Bosnia war (220.000 instead of 102.000), is more objective than these institutions? It's always inappropriate to discuss the number of victims, but we also should avoid politicisation and political abuse. And when Žerjavić published in 1993 his investigations about the victims in Yugoslavia 1941-45 he was in service of Croatia and with them in service of a conflict party during the Balkan wars 1991-95, when it was a matter of improving own position and thereby own history and of weakening those of the other conflict party. From there my suspicion that he acted not quite objectively.--Carski 11:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The demographic evidence cannot be contradicted, Yugoslavia lost 1.0 to 1.1 million dead in WW2. The breakout of this figure is a subject of debate. The general concensus is that between 200-300,000 died as soldiers or patrtisans on both sides. The remaining 700-800,000 were civilians, including about 60-70,000 Jews. Most civilians died as victims of the Fascists, however the Partisans took their revenge after the war was over. The sad chronicle of these atrocities from 1941-45 has been well documented. As far as Žerjavić is concerned let us look at the facts that he has presented regarding WW2 and keep Bosnia circa. 1992 out of the discussion. --Woogie10w02:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not about Bosnia but about the works of Žerjavić and his credibility. And Bogoljub Kočović because is Serbian is not signified that he is right, this is not an argument. There also are Croatian authors who write about 500.000 till 600.000 civililian victims only in Croatia. Now everybody tries to trick the other, just in area of public relations. This is policy especially in the Balkans today, or Israel and Palestinians too - not only, but as an example... (I'm little active in German Hagalil-forum therefore I'm not antisemitic or "anticionist"; in Hagalil-forum nobody would write about 580.000 civilian victims in Yugoslavia during WW2, and the German Shoa write about 600.000 civilian victims in Croatia, see http://www.shoa.de/content/view/231/231/). Therefore whom I will more believe, to the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, to German Shoa-forum, to Yad Vashem, or yet to Žerjavić with exists of suspicion of him that he was motivated nationalistically? To sources and data: what are sure sources and data, who determines which are more right and which are less right sources and data? To give only sources it doesn't reach, the right authorities must also stand behind it. Alles Gute. --Carski 15:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The issue here is the demographic loss suffered by Yugoslavia in the war. The impartial analysis by the US Bureau of the Census concluded that 1,067,000 Yugoslav's died in the war and 698,000 left the country. If you refuse to accept Žerjavić then you can cite US Bureau of the Census as the source. The Tito statement of 1945 that 1.7 million died in the war became gospel truth in Yugoslavia from 1945-91. Unfortunately too many people in foriegn countries accepted this worthless statistic at face value without subjecting it to critical analysis.--Woogie10w13:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
At the conference of the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences, held on June 6, 1985, Dr Dusan Breznik stated that about 1,100.000 people were killed in the war. Paul Mayers and Arthur Campbell, the American authors of the study: "The population of Yugoslavia", published by the Bureau of Census, Washington D.C. , 1954, calculated the Yugoslav life losses at 1,067.000. --Woogie10w14:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm just disputing all this numbers about Yugoslav casualties in the WWII. Also, I'm deeply unsatisfacted with the occurence that some people like to play with dead people. The US Census Bureau did an analysis of the Yugoslav population during the war and concluded losses were 1.1 million. As I can saw, The US Census Bureau for some people is untouchable authority for questions of Yugoslav demographics. But, is this really the fact? Why do you people make politics, why don't you stay on the real facts? If you haven't got any real Census data just before the War, why than fabricate anything? Yugoslav people were given too much blood in WWII. This ocean of blood also do not deserve some conference of SANU or a tea party as the reference, if you aren't pleased (question is why? politics again?) with official Yugoslav goverment data from 1945. Can you provide here some more suitable, and of course, published, respectable, scientifically proven source? If you haven't got this, please just put here official Yugoslav gov's data, or just put N/A.--Dejvas (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the Yugoslav figure of 1.7 million is that it cannot be backed up with demographic analysis. It is a statistic used only in political propaganda--Woogie10w (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You try to say that Yugoslav (figure which is aquired by counting the war victims) is political propaganda. But, US Census Bureau (analysis figure) is not??? Oh, please... don't only chattering, give the facts, only the facts I'm looking for. For example, references that Yugoslav figure of 1.7 mil isn't correct. Be accurate with details, please. And please, don't give me only your political oppinions and visions (can I say - your propaganda), exactly I'm not very interesting in that. And I'm not carry about Kočović nacionality (as a matter of fact, he isn't Serb, he is Yugoslav by ethnic affiliation). This is important: He clearly stated that his estimates depended on these assumptions, and that if other population growth were assumed, different results would have been obtained. So, we have here a situation: Kočović and Žeravčić estimation vs thousends of other ex-Yugoslav statisticians and demographers.--Dejvas (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The Report by the US Census Bureau is backed up by soild demographic analysis. The work by Žerjavić and Kočović confirm the US Census report that actual losses were between 1.0 and 1.1 million due to the war. The key point to grasp is that Yugoslavia lost 650,000 ethic Germans and Italians due to postwar emmigration, they can't be considered war losses. Add them to 1.1 million and you arrive at the official figure of 1.7 million. That is what I call fuzzy math.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I have read the following material which is relevant to our discussion, I strongly recommend that you read it. Tomasevich, Jozo. War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. ISBN0804736154 Cap.17 Alleged and True Population Losses This is a objective discussion of the controversies related to Yugoslav war losses by a well known scholar. The author makes it very clear that the Yugoslav figure of 1.7 million war dead is a political myth. I am sure that after reading the analysis by Tomasevich you will realize that actual losses were closer to 1 million. I understand that this is an emotional issue because so many innocent people have lost their lives during the war, however we must remain true to the facts. I hope that others viewing this page will have the chance to read the arguments by Tomasevich and then we will be able to continue this discussion from an informed objective point of view. Regards. --Woogie10w (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Listen, I don't care about political analysis of Tomasevich Jozo. Give me scientific evidences that the population growth in Yugoslavia was as high as Kocovic assumed in his book. If nobody in the world cannot confirm these numbers, then, whole analysis of Kocovic is only a chip novel (and possible, material ordered with an idea to minimize number of Yugoslav WWII human losses). How can one serious mathematician (statistician) to prove something without facts, based only on some assumed clues, which are btw unprovable?
So, count of Yugoslav victims in the WWII for me is 1.7 mil (gov data), or (only if someone here give precise references that this number is fabricated), than that count is N/A. Other readers can accept as they wish, and as they (politicaly) like and prefer.--Dejvas (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Yugoslav victims in the WWII for me is 1.7 mil (gov data), this is a blatant POV push. The weight of the evidence is that actual losses were 1.0-1.1 million. Again I ask readers to check Tomasevich, Jozo. War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. ISBN0804736154 Cap.17 Alleged and True Population Losses. The book by Tomasevich is a impartial academic analysis regarding Yugoslav losses. I hope that others viewing this page will have the chance to read the arguments by Tomasevich and then we will be able to continue this discussion from an informed objective point of view. You cannot push a POV that has no solid academic support.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The origin of the figure of 1.7 million war dead is a statement by Tito on April 27,1945. In late 1945 the Yugoslav government made a claim for war reparations claiming 1,706,000 war dead. Both claims were made before the census of 1948. It would be impossible to determine actual war losses without the census data. After the census Yugoslav demographers computed actual war losses at close to 1 million but their work was supressed because it did agree with Tito’s statement made during the war. The claim that Yugoslavia lost 1.7 million is political propaganda that cannot be backed up with demographic analysis. --Woogie10w (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Reliable and verifiable sources support the figure for Yugoslav losses being about 1.0 to 1.1 million. The official Yugoslav figure of 1.7 million was an estimate made in April 1945 by Tito. This estimate of 1.7 million was made before the census of 1948. Computations made by professional demographers using the data from the 1948 census have estimated actual losses at between 1.0 and 1.1 million. The official Yugoslav figure of 1.7 million has been discredited as a political myth that lacks the support of reliable and verifiable sources. These sources are reliable and can be verified. 1-Tomasevich, Jozo. War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. ISBN0804736154 In Cap.17 Alleged and True Population Losses there is a detailed account of the controversies related to Yugoslav war losses. 2-U.S. Bureau of the Census The Population of Yugoslavia Ed. Paul F. Meyers and Arthur A. Campbell , Washington D.C.- 1954 3-Bogoljub Kočović -Žrtve Drugog svetskog rata u Jugoslaviji 1990ISBN8601019285 4-Vladimir ŽerjavićYugoslavia manipulations with the number Second World War victims, - Zagreb: Croatian Information center,1993 ISBN0-919817-32-7[10] and [11] --Woogie10w (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
But, still you didn't provide any evidences for your passioned political story. You're only spinning around and around, but, this what you said is not sufficient proof, scientificaly acceptable. I don't care about whole bunch of political essays you pointed to. We have here only figures from Yugoslav census data from 1931. and census data from 1948. This is a huge amount of time.. so, all estimations are unreliable.--Dejvas (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The U.S. Bureau of the Census and an academic study by the Stanford University Press are Reliable and verifiable sources that have published support for the position that the official Yugoslav figure of 1.7 million war dead is overstated and that the actual war losses are estimated at between 1.0 and 1.1 million. These sources have explained in detail the demographic calculations that were made to arrive at this estimate. We can use only Reliable and verifiable sources here on Wikipedia.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
You say all estimations are unreliable Look at the problem from this POV. The Yugoslav statisticians Dolfe Vogelnik, Ivo Lah, Ivan Klauzner, Bogolijub Kocovic and Vladimir Zerjavic have each done independent research that estimates war losses at 1.0 to 1.1 million. The US Bureau of the Census in 1954 published a professional demographic report that estimated losses at 1,067,000. They noted that the original estimate of 1.7 million was made before the publication of census data and was incorrect. The important point is that these estimates were arrived at independently by professional researchers. The sources go into the details of how the numbers were derived, War & Revolution in Yugoslavia 1941-45, published by a leading academic institution in the U.S. concluded that the calculations by Dolfe Vogelnik, Ivo Lah, Ivan Klauzner, Bogolijub Kocovic and Vladimir Zerjavic were “ free of political and propaganda bias” the study noted that these estimates are “ very close and seem to be free of bias, we can accept them as quite reliable.” Now on the other hand there are those who continue to defend the 1945 statistic of 1.7 million war dead because was generated by the Yugoslav government in the Tito era. This was political propaganda generated by a discredited dictatorship. Statements by the Yugoslav government in the Tito era are questionable sources with a poor reputation. We need to post information that is free of political and propaganda bias, from verifiable sources. We can’t post 1.7 million and use Tito’s statement from 1945 as a source, this is political propaganda.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
It is funny that official records of the state are disputed as a propaganda, and sources by the (unfriendly) power (USA bombed Yugoslavia in 1945) and Croatian political emigration (ustasha sympathizers and supporters) are proclaimed well researched and true :)
Baltic States' deaths
It seems that the losses of the Baltic states do not include military deaths. I know that officially these countries were neutral, but people still died, they shouldn't be left out. Same goes for Austria:
We dont include the French, Polish, Soviets and Czechs in the German Army with their countries. There was one German and one Soviet Army--Woogie10w18:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This applies to all countries. There were Americans in the RAF, the US had many non citizens in it's ranks, the Japanese drafted Koreans and Tiwanese, the French, British & Italians had Africans in their forces. There are no accurate statistics on the citizenship of the dead. We must treat these military organizations as whole units.--Woogie10w18:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't think so. Baltic deaths, was baltic death, not german or Russian. The same goes for koreans.
Included with US Army deaths are 2,563 foriegn nationals, they are US military deaths. The UK had men serving in the Armed forces from Ireland, Africa and Asia, they are UK military deaths, we have no reliable breakdown of UK losses by national origin. The same logic applies to ethnic Germans and Austrians in the Wehrmacht, Koreans in the Japanese Army and Baltic peoples in the Soviet Armed forces. Why must this be the case? For two important reasons, One- We do not have accurate inforamtion on the nationality of military casualties, only general estimates for some nations, not for all nations. Two-Readers see that the Armed forces of Germany, Japan, UK and the USSR as whole entities, not mixed in with other nations casualties. In any case when the information is available it is listed in the footnotes--Woogie10w (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Woogie10w is trying to say: Those war dead have already been counted, either under the Soviet or German numbers. They aren't broken out by citizenship; if you can find a reliable source that distinguishes and separates the two, then please do contribute it. Or so I have interpreted. Tempshill (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
There alsou must be included victims of Soviet deth camps (gulags) and deportations to far north of siberi, wiht -40 in winter. It was quite a hudge nuber, some milions. Interesting enought, at the start of war, soviets deported as potential traitors all germans and jewish people to the Central Asia. I anderstan, that germans could betray Soviat union, but whay jewish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.118.205.130 (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The Soviets lost 26.6 milion, in 1946-91 borders, in excess of the pre-war level of deaths . That would include excess deaths in the Gulag as well as the war casualties. In the footnotes you see that Russian sources today include 3 million excess deaths in the area not occupied by the Germans with war dead. Readers can draw their own judgements regarding this statistic. Famine caused by the war and political repression are the probable reasons for this 3 million increase in deaths in the rear areas--Woogie10w (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
May I also add that the percentages don't add up, how is it that Albania has over 25 of the casualties losing about 30,000 respectively and the US losing more then four times the amount yet suffering not one percent of the casualties.
How is it that that Soviet Union lost Twenty Three million yet which account for more then 10% of the casualties yet the Republic of China lost Twenty Million and it accounts for less then 4%? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.203.183 (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Read the header!! Deaths as % of 1939 population --Woogie10w (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Percentage of Axis Casualties Western and Eastern Front
I have been looking into what percentage of German-Axis deaths or casualties were taken on the eastern front against the Soviets vs on the western and North African front against the Other Allies. Does anyone have an idea? Hudicourt (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Overmans has data for each month of the war on the Eastern front up until 12/31/45. The combined total for 1945 is 1.2 million for both Western & Eastern fronts. The Overmans German Army study from 2000 has demonstrated that the OKW data generated durning the war is worthless. The Italian data for the Eastern front is broken down by month. Romanian data is broken down in quarterly periods. The data for Hungary is given for 1941 and 1942. 2/3 of Hungarian losses were suffered in 1944-45. What data do you need?--Woogie10w (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Soviet figures for the war are presented in Krivosheev's book. The data for overall losses is disputed. Krivosheev assumes that only 1.3 million Soviet POW died in German hands, western historians put the number at 3 million. .Using Overmans and Krivosheev it is possible to plot out the loss ratio's durning the war. The only catch is that Krivosheev claims only 3.1 million Soviet dead and missing in 1941, the true figure would be closer to 4 million when you count men who were conscripted but not officialy on the rolls during the chaos of the 1941 campaign. For Germany the final battles durung 1945 in the East as well as the West are combined together. In 1941 the Soviets lost about 4 million KIA/MIA/POW; the Germans about 300,000. Desptite these losses they were able to regroup and eventually defeat the Germans. Overall the Soviets lost about 10 million men vs 8.7 million dead and POW on the Axis side.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The reason why I request for Asia-Pacific theatre to be broken down is that there are differing opinions if the earlier ones are part of World War II or not. Oberiko (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way to seperate USSR casualties from before/after they switched sides? Or are before statistics just not significant enough to include or seperate?Fuzbaby (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Japanese war dead include: Sino-Japanese War 1937-41 185,000 Pacific War 1942-45 1,556,000 Subtotal 1,741,000 Men missing in China, Korea & USSR after war 347,000 Total military casualties 2.1 million The Pacific war total of 1.556 million DOES NOT include the 347,000 missing men that surrendered in China and Korea and were never accounted for after the war. Civilian losses: 393,000 air attack deaths 160,000 on Okinawa & Siapan 27,000 Merchant Marine Total 580,000 Grand Total of about 2.7 million Sources: John W. DowerWar Without Mercy 1986 ISBN0-394-75172-8 Nimmo, William. Behind a curtain of silence : Japanese in Soviet custody, 1945-1956, Greenwood 1989 ISBN9780313257629--Woogie10w (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is a posting on the Axis History Forum from an official Japanese source [16] that ties out to the total of 2.1 million military war dead, the translation is in a posting on the Axis History Forum 23 Oct 2007 23:22 -[17]-Woogie10w (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Data table?
I'm thinking we need a "master data" table, on a seperate page, to store all our statistics. Since there are so many ways that we can present them, I suggest having just five columns:
Who - Which faction / nationality. Can be broken down into civilian and military, the latter of which can be broken down into branch of service
What - If the number is all casualties, KIA, MIA, wounded or other
We would then potentially have hundreds of rows, but it would also mean that we could assemble them however we need for the various articles. Oberiko (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Phases
Just thought about scope. Hence, we should probably start with the casualties that are most important for our articles. I would suggest that we do our high level statistics first and then drill down, such as the following:
Great idea, Clodfelter’s book would be the best source since it breaks out the casualties by campaign. Also the US Army report, Krivosheev ,the official Italian report and Ellis would be logical sources. Here is a draft of how this may look: 1939 Polish Campaign: Forces MEN DIV TANKS GUNS AIRCRAFT
Germany Poland Losses: MEN DIV TANKS GUNS AIRCRAFT Germany Poland --Woogie10w (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe we should drop in force levels along with the losses in order to show the correlation of forces and the relative effectivness of the opponents--Woogie10w (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
My concern is scope creep. I'm not oppossed to the idea, but it will balloon our work-load. I would advice also that we keep equipment and personnel seperate, as they don't share all that many fields plus we'd probably lump civilian casualties in with the former. Oberiko (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
There are very few stats for civilian losses in the military campaigns, that should not be on the schedule, --Woogie10w (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I am very busy here in the office @home tonight I will work up my proposal--Woogie10w (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Ground Forces Casualties
It seems like if we have this, we might just want to go all the way and include the forces committed where available. I also think your earlier proposal with the references in footnote format work better. Something rather like the following. Oberiko (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I would keep it at AFVs. While we don't normally have non-tanks, we can always just add them if they're present. The one that's probably going to be a bit of a monkey wrench is artillery. Likely we're going to want to include field-guns if we have that information, but where would we put self-propelled guns? Oberiko (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
In the Notes section we can elaborate on the details of the statistics
Here are some of my thoughts on casualties Forces committed could include combat troops in the field as well as support elements in the rear. The sources are not always clear as to actual breakdown. Casualties will include wounded that later die as well as wounded who are returned to units. Based on actual experience about 7% die of wounds and 30% are discharged as disabled. The raw statistics from a battle or campaign do not provide this information. Men lost due to disease and accidents also are usually not included with battle casualties. Personnel lost due to tropical disease was a serious problem for the US in 1942, the Germans and Soviets lost many men due to frostbite. In 1944 there was a significant undercounting by the OKW of German losses due to the chaos of the war. According to Overmans the reporting system missed up to 2 million war dead, mostly in 1944-45. The Clodfelter statistics are derived from the unreliable OKW data. On the Soviet side about 1.5 million men were missed in the official statistics due to the chaos in the early part of the war--Woogie10w (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, the problem seems to be fixed, thanks to the guys over at the SVG assistance page. The only thing that remains now is to put the image up on the article. How do we handle this? And shall I wait for a response here before putting it up myself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheShadowed (talk • contribs) 12:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The figures for Allied military and Allied civilian have been mixed up. There were more civilian than military casualties, as the bar graph shows, so the pie graph needs to have its captions moved. Chaparral2J (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I did a Google translation of the section on Netherlands Merchant Marine casualties from the following website that is posted as the source on the main page Nationale Koopvaardijmonument Rotterdam [18] On Dutch side were more than 7,000 victims during the war. Many of them disappeared in the waves and were given a burial at sea. Among them are more than 3,500 civilian casualties (including over 1,400 with another nationality). They lost their lives in the collapse of a total of nearly 500 Dutch merchant ships. The Netherlands has many monuments to members of the merchant navy who died at sea during the Second World War--Woogie10w (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
US Casualties
In the Pacific theater, General Macarthur gave orders to count every third dead, at least in some battles (Okinawa and Iwo Jima?), in order to keep up morale. I have not been able to figure out whether the US totals are accurate numbers or whether they are based on Macarthur's reduced totals. I would appreciate it if someone could clarify that point on the page. 75.62.27.14 (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Jim Bowman
Howdy Jim, I am from Missouri, you have got to show me. Please provide a verifiable source for Macarthur's orders to count every third dead.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jim. What did Mc Arthur have to do with counting casualities in the Okinawa and Iwo Jima campaigns? Please differentiate between the South West and Central Pacific campaigns. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|````Charles O'Connor comment added by Chas11098 (talk
Considering the firebombing of Tokyo is the deadliest single conventional bombing raid in the history of war, I find it strange that it is not mentioned in the footnotes, anywhere else on the page, or in the discussion. Also, the Japan footnote mentions the total number of civilians killed at a total of 900,000 on the Japanese home islands, yet the total in the table is only 580,000. I wonder what other figures are not correct on this page. Jordinho (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The number of civilian deaths on the Japanese Home Islands in 1944 was 1,172,602. In 1945, 2,113,.798. The increase in 1945 being 941,796., including 289,000 from Sept-Dec 1945. The source of these statistics, which can be verified at the NY Public Library, was a report prepared by General McArthur’s Staff.
Annual Changes in Population of Japan Proper 1 October 1920-1 October 1947, General Headquarters for the Allied Powers Economic and Scientific Section Research and Programs Division July 1948--Woogie10w (talk) 10:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
We have reliable and verifiable sources in print, that confirm that Japanese civilian casualties that were about 580,000 as a direct result of the war.
1- John W. DowerWar Without Mercy 1986 ISBN 0-394-75172-Dower cites Japanese government data that reported 393,000 civilian deaths as a result of the US strategic bombing campaign; Dower also estimated 150,000 civilian deaths on Okinawa and 10,000 on Siapan.
2- Michael Clodfelter. Warfare and Armed Conflicts- A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 1500-2000. 2nd Ed. 2002 ISBN0-7864-1204-6. Coldfelter lists 27,000 Japanese merchant marine deaths that were not included in military dead.
3- Annual Changes in Population of Japan Proper 1 October 1920-1 October 1947, General Headquarters for the Allied Powers Economic and Scientific Section Research and Programs Division. Tokyo, July 1948.
This report was prepared by the US military occupation forces in Japan, relied on Japanese government data to detail the losses and transfers of the Japanese population during the war. John W. Dower cited this source in his footnotes. The report listed Japanese civilian deaths for each month for the period 1940 to 1947, deaths were listed for the month they occurred, not the month reported. Deaths on the Japanese home islands from Jan-Aug 1945 exceeded the 1944 level by 652,000 and by 289,000 from Sept. to Aug. 1945. This is in close agreement for direct civilian deaths of 580,000 reported by Dower and Clodfelter. It is not at all surprising that deaths from Sept until Dec 1945 went up by 289,000, taking into account that Japan was devastated by the war, the lack of food, medicine and shelter took its toll, as well as persons dying of war inflicted injuries in the immediate post war period.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I still have some problems. First, the 900,000 figure has changed to 650,000 in the notes sections for some reason, which still doesn't match the '580,000' in the table. Also, why is a 60 year old US military report being used to verify the number killed? This site [19] uses a source from 1989, and found that more than a half million were killed in just eight cities. Seeing as how there were dozens of Japanese cities that were mostly destroyed, I find it hard to believe that after adding up low-ball figures for only three cities (at least 100,000 in Hiroshima, 40,000 in Nagasaki and 80,000 in Tokyo) the total civilian dead is just above double that. Am I wrong? Jordinho (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You are wrong, Dower's War Without Mercy has the official Japanese government figure of 393,300 civilian deaths due to air attacks. Dower is a reliable source in print, that can be verified. John W. Dower is a well known and respected scholar who specializes in Japan’s wartime history. The website of Richard Green is not acceptable as a source. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. Who is Richard Green? As for the figure of 650,000, this is the demographic loss suffered by the Japanese from Jan. to Aug. 1945. This would include indirect deaths due to the depravations caused by the war, famine and disese. The figure of 580,000 represents direct losses caused by the bombings, the battles on Okinawa and Siapan and merchant marine losses--Woogie10w (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You scoff at a 60 year old Army report, I took another look at the Japanese figures in that report. In mid 1944 the average number of civilian deaths was 100,000 per month. From Oct. 1944 until Sept. 1946 the average was 145,000 per month. A total increase of 1.1 million civilian deaths caused by the war.--Woogie10w (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There was also a post war bump up in deaths in Germany of 1.4 million, The USSR 1.0 million and Poland 200,000. These are demographic famine and disease losses caused by wartime devestation of the economy.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The Army report from 1948 lists civilian births, deaths and population transfers by month during the war and the postwar period up until Oct 1947. This is raw demographic data that does not give the cause of death. The number killed in air raids is not given. The report needs to be mentioned because it quantifies the demographic losses of Japan during the war and postwar era. --Woogie10w (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The source is not Richard Green it's Martin Gilbert. The description of this article says that 47 million civilians died, including those from disease and famine. However, the table itself says 41.8 million. Am I the only one who thinks that it's ridiculous to have an encyclopedia state two figures for the same item? Am I the only one who thinks it's ridiculous that mere inches away, in the notes below the table it states, "Civilian Deaths - Includes losses from military action and war related deaths caused by famine and disease." That means that the deaths due directly to air raids are only a part of the total, and should be included alongside deaths attributed to the aftereffects of all bombings. Jordinho (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Civilian casualties of 47 million include Jews killed in the Holocaust. An important point to remember is that the big numbers, China, the USSR and Poland have no figures breaking out the components of the losses, only rough estimates. In fact, the figures are demographic estimates for China, the USSR, Poland and Germany. The fine tuning of the numbers that you seek just does not exist. There were no lists of the dead made giving the cause of death. In broad general terms we know about 7 million perished due famine during the war in the USSR and 12 million in Asia.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I plan to pick up a copy of Gilbert's book at the local library tomorrow, in any case I suspect his figures include wounded as well fatalities. We need to see his figures in print.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The schedule lists total civilian deaths, when you bore down into the footnotes you will find the components of the losses. Take Italy for example, they have a meticulous breakout of losses for deaths caused by warfare only, a demographic estimate of famine deaths is not included in Italian figures. On the other hand I mentioned China, the USSR and Poland as having a general demographic loss, with rough estimates of the breakout of the components including famine deaths. We must keep in mind that each country had a different system of reporting losses. There are apples, oranges and lemons on that table; not all peaches.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This Russian language source has detailed breakdowns for civilian and military deaths in all major conflicts in the 20th century that you are requesting. Civilian losses are listed separately for bombing, & shelling , political repression and wartime famine. Military dead in battle and POW deaths are broken out. However, the numbers are from Russian and Soviet sources that are not always in agreement with estimates one would see in western countries.
Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN5-93165-107-1--Woogie10w (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems interesting, what information does this source have? do they cite the sources of their data or is it just another list of numbers?--Woogie10w (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It has a pretty good collection of numbers (most of which are in a table) and it does list references, actually, quite a large number of them. Sorry I haven't been available, I'm a bit more pressed for time then I thought I would be. Case-in-point, I've only just now finished a section of an article that I started back in February. Oberiko (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
British India or India?
Casualties for India should actually be for British India since the present day India does not include Pakistan and Bangladesh. This would also be more appropriate since the Indians were forced into the war as they were ruled by British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.52.189 (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
But "Indian Empire" redirects to "British Raj"... And the Provinces of India article here makes it seem the official term was "British Indian Empire". I'd say the term "Indian Empire" is rarely used and people that come across it in the article are a little confused. It gives the impression that India had its own empire, rather than being part of one. Would renaming it "British Indian Empire" be acceptable? TastyCakes (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The description should read "India" in my opinion, that is the commonly used name for the British colony. However, about a year ago a Pakistani nationalist objected to using India and the formal name of the colony Indian Empire was used. We should just call it India and be done with it--Woogie10w (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Well I can understand his point, since the statistics presumably include deaths of soldiers from what is now Pakistan (as well as Burma etc). I don't think it should be given as just India for accuracy reasons alone... TastyCakes (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The CWGC uses the term Undivided India, every history of the war refers to just India. There is no breakout of casualties between India and Pakistan. Burma was NOT part of India after 1937--Woogie10w (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be called "India," because India was the common short form name, and is how the country was referred to at the time. "Indian Empire" is awkward and confusing to most people, and the link obviously goes to British raj, rather than to India, so I don't see what the issue is. john k (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
But "British India" is incorrect - "British India" refers only to the directly administered areas, and excludes the princely states. The presence of the Union Jack on the old Indian flag ought to alert people to the fact that it was under British rule. john k (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Field Marshal Auchinleck, who commanded in North Africa from 1941 to 1942, was an Indian Army officer. Which brings up a question - do the "Indian" casualties include Britons in the Indian Army? 98.111.177.148 (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC) [ETA - That was me; somehow I got logged out. john k (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)]
Yes they do, there is no seperate breakdown given, none. They were not British casualties, they were in the Indian Army.
Take the Eagle Squadrons as an example, the casualties are included with the UK by the CWGC. They were not American casualties, they were British.
John, there is no way you can Tweek and fine tune Commonwealth losses that included many different ethnic groups fighting for the crown
Just for the record I found a Canadian citizen who was killed in the USN in WW2, the guy is counted twice by the US and in the Canadian database also. The numbers are not derived from a single source!!
I have done OR using CWGC records online to estimate UK casualties by nationality, I made the estimate using statistical analysis. I cannot and will never post this data on Wikipedia. --Woogie10w (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Images
Hi, I replaced an image that has unclear copyright status with an image that's definitely public domain. My edit summary described the reason for the change, but that got reverted without explanation. Please see Commons:Commons:Licensing#Russia_and_former_Soviet_Union. It is very likely that the other image is no longer public domain due to a recent change in Russian copyright law. DurovaCharge!10:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
You can't just take something out of the public domain once it is in the public domain. Screw the Russians, they do not get to rewrite history! --Dragon695 (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
They can't rewrie history but they do have real nasty prisons. I don't want Jimbo Wales to get locked up if he visits Russia. Lets obey the law.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Breakdown of Commonwealth casualties and Third Party Casualties
I'm currently working on tallying the casualties from specific Commonwealth territories during WWII using CWGC. I'll post my findings to the talk page, and if anyone wants to include it, they may. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.153.133 (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this your own original research? Do your totals agree to the bottom line of the CWGC?--Woogie10w (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
My own research, which I will never post to Wikipedia, indicates 16% of the 210,000 UK Army war dead were from colonies, including 13% from Africa.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
So far they match. It's my own research (or compiling), so I'm still looking for secondary confirmation. Something more solidly quotable. My findings for the Merch. Marine are interesting so far, but I'm still looking for additional sources to confirm them.
For example I've tallied about 1,635 Chinese nationals serving with the British MM (most of which were from Hainan, etc) but there may be overlap with Hong Kong, which I'm trying to uncover.
Here are some others I tallied from the CWGC
124 Malta (UK MM)
49 Norway (UK MM)
302 Denmark (UK MM)
79 Aden-Yemen (UK MM)
23 Barbados (UK MM)
44 Jamaica (UK MM)
When finished, hopefully, I'll have enough supporting sources to back up the findings from the CWGC. I wasn't going to post anything outside here or the sandbox without proper supporting material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.153.133 (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Casualties are counted under the flag they served under, not their country of origin. For example over 3,000 foreign nationals are included with US WW2 war dead. Michael Strank who helped raise the flag at Iwo Jima was not a US citizen at the time of his death. We count his loss as US fatality, not Czechoslovak. German war dead include 1.1 million men who were not German nationals. UK war deaths from the colonies are counted with the UK, not the separate colonies. The UK had about 10,000 Irish citizens among their war dead, these casualities are UK, not Irish. I hope this helps.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Late War dead in Soviet Occupied Countries
Just a query. Does this article include people killed by the Soviets in the occupied countries in Eastern Europe as part of their efforts to set up Soviet satellite states?
I understand there may be no good data on this or it may lie outside the scope of the article but it deserves a mention in the discussion. We know that many people were killed across the occupied countries after the Soviet occupation though I don't have any particular data. Some prominent examples include: Raoul Wallenberg, who famously saved thousands of jews in Hungary and was arrested by the Soviets and almost certainly shot in 1947; Witold Pilecki, the only man to volunteer to go into Auschwitz who was shot in 1947. Other examples include hte cursed soldiers who continued to fight on against the Soviets in Poland and Ukraine into the 50's. We may consider the War ended in 1945 but they would undoubtably consider it a continuation of the same conflict and they were certainly killed, effectively, for actions taken during the war.
German losses after May 1945 can only be estimated. In Germany, within 1937 borders only, the war losses were 6.9 million( military & civilian) between 1939 and 1946, when Austria & the ethnic Germans are included the loss is about 8 million. Looking at German vital statistics it seems that over 800,000 died in the post war famime. According to Rudiger Overmnans 450,000 Germans perished in the post war expulsions and forced labor in the USSR. Also Overmans estimated 270,000 military deaths of POWin the post war period.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
WWII casualties graph.
Hi,
Ill be to the point.
I think the casualties graph is a good, concise way of showing the info however...
I think it could be improved by better labeling in the graph itself.
Though it is implied, it would be good to write exactly what the pie chart represents.
Also relating to labeling, i think the scale on the main graph would benefit from including a line for the overall percentage figure.
Also the second. I think from a point of view of quick and accurate reference, it could be a nice idea to extend the scale of overall dead to 25mil... now... (bear with me)... this would mean the scale could be divided into ten sections. Meaning each section would represent either '2.5 million dead' or '10% of 1939 population' depending on which info you were looking at. Obviously 2.5 million isnt quite as nice a figure as 2 mil but I feel it would be round enough and it would mean the graph would function over both statistics it is representing.
Just a thought.
Id be happy to do it if you are interested. Thought i better ask before doing anything!
Respect for all of the articles you have created. Hell of a lot of work.
This is the text from the Australian War Memorial website on the criterion used to determine war dead in WW2 Second World War To be eligible, an individual must:
•have died during or as a result of service while a member of an Australian military force or unit which was or could be sent overseas or, after the entry of Japan into the Second World War, while a member of the Australian Military Forces; and have died within the specified periods. Second World War 3 September 1939 -30 June 1947 (Disbandment of AIF)
This is the text from the CWGC website on the criterion used to determine war dead: The Commission only commemorates those who have died during the designated war years in service or of causes attributable to service. The war years are considered to be 4 August 1914 to 31 August 1921 for World War I and 3 September 1939 to 31 December 1947 for World War II.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Good question, because the USSR lost more than any other nation 26.6 million(in post war borders), including 8 million cvilians and 3 million POW who were victims of Nazi war crimes. The photo in question is an excellant portrayal of the horrors of war, the victims were Soviets but could have been the German civilians killed by the Red Army in Christburg in 1945. My grandfather was born in Christburg. Lets try to be cool and maintain a neutral POV.--Woogie10w (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Not in terms of percentage though, but I don't want to discuss figures here. My problem is that World War II was a disaster for dozens of nations, not just the USSR, and by using just a single image for the country that "suffered the most" this page turns into some sort of competition. Grey Fox (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I agreee, We don't need to have a picture for every country. The one there now does an excellant job of depicting the horrors of war--Woogie10w (talk) 11:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, Grey Fox, let me explain you. You were absolutely right that World War II was a disaster for dozens of nations, therefore it is not correct to speak about the USSR alone. On other hand, paying equal attention to the USSR or China (who lost over 20 million each) and to the US/UK (far less that a million together) also would be incorrect. And it is very difficult to find a balance between these two extreme POVs. Therefore, let me ask you the following: since some picture is definitely needed in the article, what other picture would be better to your opinion? If, to your opinion, the only solution would be making a collage, please, take into account that it must reflect a relative scale of each major nations' suffering, therefore the USSR's picture should compose ~50% of all pictures of this collage, and 2/3 of the rest part should be given to China. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
It's logical for the S. Union to have suffered most casualties, since they were by far the biggest nation in Europe. However they didn't suffer more in terms of percentage than the Poles and/or the Jews. I wasn't after a picture of US/UK casualties at all. An extra picture of Chinese casualties or holocaust deaths would make more sense. But like I said it's best to exclude pictures altogether, because for patriotic pictures people love to use a picture of their own home country, thus putting more emphasis on one side of the story, and I prefer to avoid such competition. The caption that reads "The death toll in the Soviet Union during World War II was immense." is also rather intriguing, as if the death toll for other nations was not immenseGrey Fox (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
According to your statement:"But like I said it's best to exclude pictures altogether, because for patriotic pictures people love to use a picture of their own home country" all nation specific information should be excluded because people love to present information on their home countries.
Jews were (and continue to be) the ethnicity not nationality (everywhere but in Israel), therefore contraposition of the Soviet people and Jews is incorrect: during WWII majority Jews were Soviet citizens (by the way, I myself am an ethnic Jew).
The phrase "The death toll in the Soviet Union during World War II was immense" is very relevant, and it is good if it looks intriguing, because we need to break a common stereotype that the major Hitler's crime was extermination of European Jews.
If you propose some pictures for the collage it would be fine. To my opinion, two pictures have to be from the USSR, one more from the annexed part of pre-war Poland (it can be a Holocaust picture), two from China and one from Germany. Until it has been done, the present picture seems to be the most relevant and we should leave it for a while. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
1) Not really because a picture singles out one specific country, whereas the information of all countries does not. 2) Yes jews are regarded on ethnicy, but the Jewish community did exist. It's different from nationality but still comparable. 3) I disagree with you on that. You mention that a 'myth' exists but I'm not aware of that. And I do believe the holocaust was Hitler's worst crime. Jews were picked up as rabits unable to defend themselves. 2/3ths were slaughtered on basis of ethnicy, the biggest form of genocide. One of the darkest chapters in human history if you ask me. Of course Soviet casualties are also one of the darkest chapters ever, but you can relate them. 23 million died out of 168,000 million, whereas 6 million jews died out of 9 million. 4)I'm not fond of collages :) Two extra images could simply be inserted (chinese/jewish casualties) and the sizes reduced.
Information about all countries is already present in the article, therefore, pictures plays emotional rather than informative role. Obviously, this picture should present the most striking example of war deaths. Therefore, it is quite natural that it should depict deaths of the Soviet people, because they belonged to the community that sustained a majority of war losses. As regards to Jews, once again, the terms "Soviet peoples" and "Jews" are not mutually exclusive, because majority Jews were Soviet citizens during that time. I am aware that in the current article the Eastern Polish Jews are considered Polish citizens, and I concede that there is some ground for that. However, the traditional point of view also deserves to be taken into account: of course, in 1939 no one asked Eastern Poland Jews is they prefer to be the Soviet citizens or they would like to remain citizens of the Secon Polish republic. However, in 1920, when Kresy were incorporated into Poland they also hadn't been asked (by the way, taking into account infamous pogroms they would prefer to be Soviet citizens). In addition, many Jews fought in Red Army against Hitler, and a relative amount of Jews decorated with the order of Hero Of Soviet Union was highest in the Soviet Union (as compared with all other Soviet nations), therefore, it is quite possible that some bodies at the present picture belong to Jews. I am not talking about myth (I am not a Holocaust denier), I used the word "stereotype". However, in many history books "for dummies" a brief description of Hitler's crimes used to be summarized in two statements: he started WWII and killed many Jews (people use to understand it like a majority of Hitler's victims were Jews). This stereotype is common in Western countries, and it is very good that the article breaks it. As regards to the caption, it is quite correct, therefore I simply don't understand what change are you talking about. Or you think that "The death toll in the Soviet Union during World War II wasnotimmense"?. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so you mean the holocaust was actually a genocide against Soviet citizens, because those jews killed allegedly supported communism and the Soviet Union? I don't know where that theory comes from but it sounds like Jewish Bolshevism, which was a dangerous stereotype.
I'm not sure which wwII books for dummies you mean, but I haven't seen them. Wikipedia doesn't have to mimick those books though, as this isn't a page for dummies, so whatever myth does not 'have' to be broken by inserting a memorial for soviet victims at this page's introduction.
And yes of course the death toll of the Soviet Union was immense, but so were other death tolls. By placing a memorial of Soviet casualties at the introduction of this article, which deals with all WWII casualties, and stating that their death toll was imense it pretty much indicates that the casualties for other nations was not immense. Seriously, can't we just find a memorial for all victims and not just soviet victims? Grey Fox (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
That picture is one of the better war photos in the public domain, unless somebody has a better canidate, it should stay there.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The photo in question was suppressed in Stalin's USSR, it was considered unpatriotic. Read this:His most moving images were suppressed and were only first exhibited and published in the more open 1960s. Chief among these censored images was the documentation of the Nazi massacre of thousands of men, women and children in the Crimean village of Kerch in winter 1942. Baltermants searingly captured the overpowering day of grief as the village women searched for the bodies of their loved ones in the killing fields[20], this is how Columbo worked, he always solved the case and convinced the jury.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Grey Fox, I probably didn't make myself clear. Of course, the Holocaust was primarily a deliberate extermination of Jews. However, if you look at the The Holocaust article, you will see that other groups were also being killed, including Roma; Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war; ethnic Poles; the disabled; gay men; and political and religious opponents. In that sense, your statement:"And I do believe the holocaust was Hitler's worst crime. Jews were picked up as rabbits unable to defend themselves. 2/3ths were slaughtered on basis of ethnicy, the biggest form of genocide" is incorrect from two points of view. First, Soviet citizens, as well as Jews, and in contrast to Western Europeans, were being killed on basis of ethnicy; second, majority Jews were Soviet citizens during WWII. Therefore, you a)artificially narrow the definition of the Holocaust; b)overemphasize the difference between Jews and other Nazi victims without a sufficient ground; c) contrast those Jews who "were picked up as rabits unable to defend themselves", and those who did resist, for instance, as Red Army soldiers, or partisans. Of course, under German occupation the chances to survive were higher for a non-Jewish Soviet citizen that for Jew. Nevertheless, sufferings of the non-Jewish Soviet people were much closer to those of Jews than of Western Europeans, therefore overemphasizing a difference between Jewish and non-Jewish Soviet citizen is not correct. If you look at the article, you will see that the picture is not in introduction. It is in the Recent historical scholarship section and it has a direct relation to the text. And, frankly, I don't understand why we cannot tell the truth, namely, that 27 million people was really immense death toll... And, finally, the everyone's life is equally precious, regardless of his/her country/ethnic group size. As an ethnic Jew and man who lost some of my ancestors during the Holocaust I have a right to tell that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
1) Yes slavs were also considered untermenschen, but jews were regarded a lot lower. You can see this on this same casualty chart; otherwise the amount of Jews killed in countries such as czechslovakia and poland would not be higher than the amount of czech/polish civilians killed in spite of the fact that jews were a minority. 2) Again I don't know where the story comes from that "most jews were Soviet citizens". 1/6th of the Jewish holocaust victims were Soviets according to this page. 3) I personally consider the holocaust the biggest tragedy because of the way in which it was carried out, namely the absence of actual warfare.
Anyway this strays from the topic we should be discussing. I offered criticism because I feel that by only placing a memorial of soviet casualties on top of this page it discredits the other 4/5th casualties of this war who weren't Soviets. And that the line "The death toll in the Soviet Union during World War II was immense." is out of place, because the other 4/5th casualites in the world were also immense. I respect your families tragic history of course. Grey Fox (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest that seems strange for me too. The article states:"Jewish losses in the Holocaust are listed separately for each nation, since they are known." If that in the only reason, the head "civilain deaths", as opposed to "Holocaust deaths" looks strange, because it implies that the Holocaust victims weren't "civilian" (and not military). As regards to your other note, let me remind you that the table presents numbers for pre-war borders. However, by the moment the full scale Holocaust started most Eastern Poland Jews were Soviet citizens, and, more important, their survived decendants are living in ex-Soviet states or Israel, not Poland. Most sources, including the present article estimate Soviet war losses (in post war borders) at 26.6 million. However, even based on the numbers from the table the USSR sustained 23.1/72.8=32% of total WWII losses. That constitutes 1/3 of world casualties, not 1/5, and about a half of total Allied losses. Therefore, I still cannot understand your arguments. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Well they're quickly followed by the Republic of China (which suffered a lot more civilian casualties). Further more the Soviet Union was by far the largest country in europe (in terms of population) and more a combination of dozens of countries than a single country. Grey Fox (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
If we use the post-war borders numbers, even civilian casualties are almost the same for the USSR and ROC (Of course, I add Holocaust victims to civilian deaths). As regards to "a combination of dozens of countries", this argument can be applied to every big country, starting from Roman Empire, because all of them had split in past or will split in distant future. China, for instance, existed in form of a "combination of dozens of countries" during several (long) periods of her history. The UK existed in form of two kingdoms several centuries ago, and, probably, will split in future. Is it relevant to the subject of our discussion? Anyway, we need a picture that symbolizes a horror of WWII. The present picture fits this criterion well. If you can propose something better, let's speak concretely. If not, let's stop this discussion. --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The question of who killed who is tricky, the Soviets claim that all the civilians killed in the USSR were victims of the Nazis. We know that this is not true, some may have died in the fighting, or were victims of Soviet reprisals. In any case my dad who was a WW2 US GI in Europe told us a story of how the Germans blew up a hospital in Liege killing many civilians, while retreating, I believed him until 2001 when I was in Liege and spoke to the librarian who was familiar with the local history, he said that hospital was hit by an allied air strike.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Yugoslav Axis/Allied casualties
Allied Military personnel killed, percentage by country.Axis Military personnel killed, percentage by country.
Cocerning these figures, I think there's an error here. I pointed it out on the creaters' talk page but he might be inactive so I'll just post it here as well.
Yugoslav allied military deaths are listed at 3%. This is what the source says: 'Military losses of 237,000 Yugoslav partisans and 209,000 Ustaše'. Judging from 3% being higher than the 2% of the United States, the deaths of the Ustase are included on the allied side, but they were in fact Axis forces.
That said Yugoslavia can also be added on the Axis Death diagram (The Ustase and the Chetniks), the axis casualties for Yugoslavia are listed here: Yugoslav Front (World War II), but I don't know how accurate they are.
The death of Chetniks can also be added to the overal military casualties of Yugoslavia on this page, which currently only has Yugoslav Partisans and Ustase casualties. Grey Fox (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I can't fix those pie charts, they are frozen in stone on Wiki Media. In any case the numbers in the article are correct and are backed up with a verifiable source. The charts were created in Excel and uploaded.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I seem te able to update it when I'm logged in on commons, (you should too), but I'd have to calculate the new percentages to do that. Grey Fox (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
They would not be added to Dutch casualties, they are already included in the 58,000 killed in Nazi repression listed in the footnotes according to our source Fromkin. If you have a source for that figure of 4,878 deaths please post it here. Then we should add it to the footnotes--Woogie10w (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, the Dutch resistance deaths belong with the military. France,Italy and Denmark military casualties include resistance fighters. The Dutch resistance needs to be subtracted from the civilian side of the schedule. We need a source that can be verified.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
BTY my father was a US GI who was in the spearhead that went into Holland in Sept 1944, the Dutch gave him a medal. He said the local Dutch people went nuts and started killing the collaborators --Woogie10w (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Haha. I've never heard of that before. They did display dutch females, who had dated german militia, to the public while shaving their heads, and threw tar and feathers over them. I can assure you though that no large amount of collaborators were killed, unless this has never come out. Anyway are you sure the Dutch resistance deaths are included in civilian deaths at the moment? Grey Fox (talk) 01:56, 15 December2008 (UTC)
The source is Dutch resistance: Vechten voor vrijheid By Loek Caspers Page 283. It's viewable on books.google.com , but, as you may have guessed, is dutch in language. It mentioned the amount of casualties for about 10 resistance groups (and their initial sizes), and I simply added them. There's possibly more sporadic resistance groups not covered in that book, so it's a minimum. Grey Fox (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
And something similar; there were also a couple of dutch brigades and commando units that fought along side the british on the western front during the invasion of normandy, as well as along side Australians in the pacific theatre after KNIL soldiers had retreated from the dutch east indies. I'm still working on collecting their casualty details (up to a thousand it seems), their operations are well covered. Grey Fox (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Positive, our source Fromkin, published a detailed professional analysis of losses based on Dutch offical sources. His figure for total military losses was for only regular forces in Europe.
My Dutch is just so so, since I read German. Your source ties out, 5.000 is is a reasonable estimate. In any case, the same source lists 40 dead in the Princess Irene Brigade, no where near 1,000.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Check out this Australian government website: Consequently, except for a few small raids and intelligence collection missions to its former territories, Dutch ground forces played an inconsequential role in the defeat of Japan.[21]--Woogie10w (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes but that's just the Irene Brigade, after that it says an extra 101 'stoottroepen' died in combat (units formed when a small part of the netherlands was liberated). So at least 140 died. But this is just in the Netherlands (and a minimum, I think there's a few more other units), I don't know if the casualties by the Irene brigade suffered in Belgium and France were included, but I'll find out. Then there were also quite an amount of volunteer soldiers and KNIL soldiers who continued fighting after the japanese occupation of Indonesia. I will try to find out as much as I can about these units (of which hundreds of images exist), but won't change anything about casualty details on this page until that's all worked out.
That's just one source though. Here's another military Australian site[22]:
Relocated NEI forces included six warships, nine submarines, over 1,000 troops and a number of aircraft, mostly transports. These resources were warmly welcomed and quickly integrated with Allied forces. But even more important in those dark days were the KPM company's merchant ships now located in Sydney. Australia then had virtually no merchant navy. The 28 KPM ships now based in Sydney became the major Allied supply line during the most critical, early stages of the New Guinea campaign. Indeed, they became a life line to Australian and U.S forces in New Guinea, delivering some 1 000 000 tons of supplies and 100 000 troops to the allied forces. Their contribution is hard to overstate. 19 of the 21 merchant ships allocated , to General MacArthur's command were Dutch. In all probability, without the KPM merchant fleet, the Allies could not have beaten the Japanese in New Guinea in 1942-43. Australia may have been invaded and the Allies would certainly have had a much harder and longer task to win the war.
Anyway this is just a part of what I'm talking about. There were more units, such as the Insulinde corps from Ceylon ([23]these badass folks), and knil guerillias that continued fighting in guinea. But when I said "up to a thousand" I kind of meant "no more than a thousand", it's just a rough estimate, it could be only a few hundred, but I'll find good sources in order to improve this section. Grey Fox (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The site has a lot of useful information, mostly about war grave monuments all over the world. The problem is I don't know what is and what isn't already included on this casualty list. For example, thanks to this site I found out about the Junyō Maru disaster. Apparently a british torpedo struck a japanese cargo ship in 1944, onboard 1,377 Dutch, 64 British and Australian, and 8 American prisoners of war along with 4,200 Javanese slave labourers. That's something different than "8,000 died of disease, starvation or ill-treatment in Japanese hands". Grey Fox (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I've found official numbers from 1948 on the site of the Central Bureau for Statistics[26]. They total 210.000 dutch war casualties, excluding 60.000 deaths not considered "direct war casualties" by law, but which are still the result of war (this is explained in the document - they are mostly deaths due to disease). That means it's either 210.000 total casualties, or 280.000 depending on if we include these 60.000 deaths. Currently they aren't included on this page, which lists the amount of casualties at 230.00, which comes pretty close, because these 1948 figures seem to completely ignore casualties suffered by the KNIL in the pacific theatre, as well as the thousands of prisoners of war executed there.
I'll post the translated figures here:
1 Royal Landforce (1) 3 900
2 Royal Navy (2) 2 600'
3 Sea Merchants (3) 1 350
4 Executions and state law 2 800
5 Concentration camps in the Netherlands 2 500
6 Civilian deaths because of warfare in the Netherlands '20 400
7 Starvation and Privation in North/South Holland and Utrecht 16 000
8 POW's in germany 250
9 Jews in Germany 104 000
10 Political Prisoners in Germany 18 000
11 Employed in Germany 27 000
12 Volunteers in the German forces 3 700
13 Missing in Germany (estimated amount of deaths) (4) 7 500
Total direct war casualties (5) 210 000
1) Includes 1700 losses of the BS-forces, considered part of the royal landforce by law.
2) Includes officers and personel of the Royal Marine deaths east of Suez.
3) Excluded are the estimated 1 650 merchants of foreign nationalities (±500Chinese, ±British-Indians, ±250 Lacars)
4) The amount of missing in germany (excluding Jews), registered at the Dutch red cross was 7 900 per July 1 1948
Notes:
The 17 00 BN-forces (who fought along the allied forces since 1944) are included in the 5.000 dutch resistance casualties we recently added. I guess the other resistance fighter casualties are included under Executions and state law and Civilian deaths due to warfare.
The volunteers in the German forces are Nazi collaborators such as in the Waffen SS. Currently the casualty figures on this wiki page says Losses of about 10,000 in the German Armed Forces are not included in these figures., citing Overmars. Overmars also used the exact same figure for collaborators in Belgium (under Belgium casualties). I think, given that the number 10.000 is rather simple, we're dealing with a conservative and inaccurate estimates here, so it's probably best to stick with the official numbers here.
Merchant marines as currently cited on the wiki page seem off, I read the source and they spoke instead of civilian deaths. I guess "merchant marines". I don't know how we can determine how many of the Sea Merchants can be considered "military casualties".
Casualties suffered in the East Indies / Australia seem completely ignored in these statistics. I remember how in the past there was a lot of criticism on how these victims received little attention from state institutions and war coverage during the past century, so that might explain. Grey Fox (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to post the figures. Frumkin listed the same figures except he did not break out the miliitary in detail. Based on what you just posted, I think the Military-Merchant Marine figure needs clarification in the footnotes. You have done a fine job, the page can be improved. You wrote Casualties suffered in the East Indies / Australia seem completely ignored in these statistics. The issue of losses in the East Indies was treated separately back then. The only source that I could find with data on the East Indies was the French reference work Quid Have you seen Dutch sources on losses in the Indies.?
Overmans put a question mark beside that figure of 10,000, I think you are correct in using the official figure of 3,700.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
How do we reconcil the figure of BN forces and the resistance? I don't understand the term BN. It seems that 1,700 BN are duplicated in the figure of 5,000, do you agree? Also, we should mention the 70,000 "extra" deaths. What does the Dutch source say regarding these other losses. My father was sent to Holland in 1945 after the war to help deliver food to the people, he described a real grim picture.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what to do with the military merchants article currently cited.[27] Their article says 7000 merchants deaths, of which 3500 civilians, of which 1400 foreign. The CBS figures above mentions the deaths of 1350 sea merchants and 1650 foreign sea merchants, but does not mention if any of them were military. Possibly military merchant deaths are included in the Royal Navy deaths, but the navy deaths are only 2600. Also I'm not sure if the navy deaths do include the casualties suffered in the pacific theatre. It says in the note section that theyve included casualties east of "suez", but how far that goes I don't know. The KNIL did not have his own navy, so the navy deaths in the east indies should also be attributed to royal navy deathsl. I've bene looking at KNIL deaths but it's not so well documented, but I'll continue my research. Grey Fox (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I misstyped the term "BN", it should actually be "BS", which stands for Binnenlandse Strijdkrachten, which literally translates to "Forces within the country". The BS was formed a few days after the landing in Normandy, and was composed of the Dutch resistance forces that initially didn't operate together during the occupation (they had a lot of indifferences). They were united under the leadership of Prince Bernhard and fought along the allies, heavily relying on allied dropped weapons, in the last year numbering about 45.000. The figure of 5000 Dutch resistance fighters includes the BS victims, which means that 3300 resistance fighters had died before D-Day. That's a minimum though, there's a lot of documents on smaller resistance forces operating during the occupation, I'll try to document them later on. Anyway these 3300 casualties, I think, are included in the statistics above as civilian deaths. Grey Fox (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Many Thanks spelt-out on the ground in tulips after Operation Manna
These 70.000 deaths were registered but not considered "direct war casualties by law" in these 1948 statistics, and were treated seperately in the publications. According to a research from the Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute in 1985 these deaths are "attributed to Typhus, Diphtheria, Dysentery, (Lung)Tuberculosis, Diarrhea, Enteritis, (especially among infants), other ailments of the Gastrointestinal tract and Pneumonia." So yes I think we should include them.
BTW heads up for your dads service on the western front. The grim picture your dad described was due to the Dutch famine of 1944, and he may have served during Operation Manna. You can search for photographs on google image search by using "Operatie Manna" or "Voedseldroppings" (food droppings). Liberation Day ("Bevrijdingsdad") is still celebrated every year and the US participation will never be forgotten and is a often a factor in the good relationship between US and Dutch governments, including our military support in the middle east. Grey Fox (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Revised Dutch footnote -A Draft
What is your opinion?
Dutch government figures for losses in Europe released in 1948 by the Central Bureau of Statistics listed 210,000 deaths directly related to the war.2,109-111 The details are as follows: Military deaths of 8,100; which included 2,200 regular Army, 1,700 Dutch resistance fighters, 2,600 Navy 250 deaths of POW, and 1,350 Merchant Marine. Civilian deaths of 201,900; which included 27,000 forced workers in Germany, 7,500 missing and presumed dead in Germany, 2,800 victims of executions , 2,500 deaths in Dutch concentration camps, 18,000 political prisoners in Germany , 20,400 deaths due to military activities, 3,700 men serving in the German military and 104,000 deported Jews. These figures do not include an additional 70,000 indirect deaths due to an increase in the death rate during the war and 1,650 foreign nationals serving in the merchant marine. The losses of 3,700 in the German Armed Forces are not included with Dutch war losses, they are included with the military of Germany.
Dutch losses in the Far East were not included in the figures listed above except for the Navy.
Military losses in Asia were 900 in the 1942 Dutch East Indies campaign and 8,500 military POW deaths in Japanese captivity.87,1275. The Australian War Memorial website reports 8,000 of the 37,0000 Dutch POW died in Japanese captivity[28]. Civilian losses in Asia reported by the Dutch Red Cross included the deaths in Japanese custody of 14,800 Europeans out of 80,000 interned in the Dutch East Indies.92,170 The Netherlands War Graves Foundation maintains a registry of the names of Dutch war dead. [29] The genocide of Roma people was 500 persons.13,183Jewish Holocaust victims totaled 106,000.14,244 CBS, 1948, Oorlogsverliezen 1940–1945. Maandschriftvan het Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, blz. 749. Belinfante, ’s-Gravenhage.[30].
There's a number of problems. You've included the Sea Merchant deaths as military, but aren't they civilian? I also think it makes sense to withdraw the 3700 dutch nazi casualties from the list of civilian casualties:) Then there's also the Dutch resistance besides the BS forces that I think we should withdraw from civilian casualties and add to military casualties. I'm still not sure about this, because a lot of these resistance members weren't really militants such as the organisations that helped Jews into hiding. Let me give my version:
Dutch government figures for losses in Europe released in 1948 by the Central Bureau of Statistics listed 210,000 direct war casualties.2,109-111 The details are as follows: Military deaths of 6,750; which included 2,200 regular Army, 1,700 BS forces, 2,600 Navy forces and 250 POW in Germany. Civilian deaths of 199,550; which included 27,000 forced workers in Germany, 7,500 missing and presumed dead in Germany, 2,800 victims of executions, 2,500 deaths in Dutch concentration camps, 18,000 political prisoners in Germany, 20,400 deaths due to military activities, 1,350 Sea Merchants, 104,000 deported Jews, and 16,000 deaths in the Dutch Famine. 1,650 foreign merchants are not included. An extra 3,700 deaths in the German Armed forces. The CBS statistics also reported an additional 70,000 "indirect war casualties", which are attributed to various diseases. On this page the losses of 3,700 in the German Armed Forces are not included with Dutch war losses, they are included with the military of Germany.
At least 3,12199,283 members of various Dutch resistance groups were killed during the occupation, excluding the BS forces. On this page they are instead included under military casualties.
Dutch losses in the Far East were not included in the CBS figures except for the Navy:
This would total 19,271 military deaths (including the resistance losses), and 281,229 civilian deaths (including the xtra 70.000), totalling exactly 300,500 deaths. Grey Fox (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion we should repeat what the source says, the CBS figures should be presented unaltered. We should also put a separate sentence that mentions the figure of 5,000 resistance deaths. Section A with the CBS data as is, section B with the source listing the figure of 3,121 civilian resistance dead counted as military and another section for the Far East. Our job should be to give the readers the information from the source and let them decide. On the question of Merchant Marine, in the UK they were counted with the military, they are also in the US military figures since President Reagan gave them veterans status. They were on the front lines, I believe they should be counted as military. On the issue of the 70,000 extra deaths I believe they should be counted since the figures for other countries include huge demographic losses; the USSR 7 million, Poland also includes famiine deaths as well as China. To be consistant that figure needs to be included--Woogie10w (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Dutch government figures for losses in Europe released in 1948 by the Central Bureau of Statistics( CBS) listed 210,000 direct war casualties plus an additional 70,000 disease deaths caused by the war. The details are as follows: Military deaths of 8,100; which included 2,200 regular Army, 1,700 Dutch Resistance forces, 2,600 Navy forces, 250 POW in Germany and 1,350 Merchant seaman. Civilian deaths of 271,900; which included 27,000 forced workers in Germany, 7,500 missing and presumed dead in Germany, 2,800 victims of executions, 2,500 deaths in Dutch concentration camps, 18,000 political prisoners in Germany, 20,400 deaths due to military activities, 3,700 Dutch serving in the German military, 104,000 deported Jews and 16,000 deaths in the Dutch famine of 1944. The official statistics also reported an additional 70,000 "indirect war casualties", which are attributed to various diseases caused by wartime conditions. Not included in these figures are an additional 1,650 foreign nationals killed while serving in the Dutch Merchant Marine.{{cite CBS]] At least 3,12199,283 civilian members of various Dutch resistance groups were killed during the occupation. On this page they are included under military casualties. On this page the losses of the 3,700 Dutch in the German Armed Forces are not considered Dutch war casualties, they are included with the military of Germany. The Dutch suffered additional losses in the Far East which were not included in the CBS figures except for the Navy. Military losses in Asia were 900 in the 1942 Dutch East Indies campaign and 8,500 military POW deaths in Japanese captivity.87,1275. The Australian War Memorial website reports 8,000 of the 37,0000 Dutch POW died in Japanese captivity[33]. Civilian losses in Asia reported by the Dutch Red Cross included the deaths in Japanese custody of 14,800 Europeans out of 80,000 interned in the Dutch East Indies.92,170 The Netherlands War Graves Foundation maintains a registry of the names of Dutch war dead. [34] The genocide of Roma people was 500 persons.{{ref|Destiny|13,183} That rounds up to 21,000 military, 176,000 civilians, 104,000 Jews for a total of 301,000 We should not use the term BS forces, it is not understood in the English speaking world, also CBS may be misunderstood by Americans as the CBS News network. now back to that Teach Yourself Dutch book.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The German census of Oct 1946 reported 37,767 Dutch citizens living in Germany. I wonder how many were counted as missing and presumed dead by the folks at CBS. --Woogie10w (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Arab world is ignored
You have every country on the planet but the Arab world is ignored. There was fighting in Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria and you are telling the world that no civilians were killed. Wikipedia is biased against Arabs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.237.205.34 (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
During WW2 these countries were colonies of some European countries (UK, Italy, France, Spain), so they could be counted like part of them. You are maybee a litle paranoic about topic of Arabs. (excuse bad english, it is not my motherlanguage) --Dr. Killer (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The person should post data with a verifiable source and then we could discuss the matter. We say in Brooklyn "put up or shut up"--Woogie10w (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
61 million or 84.72% of total casulties on Allied side?
First paragraph states: "Total military dead: about 25 million, including deaths in captivity of about 4 million prisoners of war. Axis dead: approximately 11 million; Allied dead: about 61 million." Can anyone provide source for that 61 million? It can't be true that almost 85% of casualties were on Allied side. It just doesn't make sense, sorry. Axis lost, right? It just seams logical to me that side that was mowed down has more casualties than the winners. Unless somebody challenges this, and backs 61 million with credible source, I will edit out part of quote after full stop or adjust the numbers if I can find source of my own (after allowing some time for somebody to respond).--Melmann(talk) 16:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Mellmann what is your sorce? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.237.205.34 (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
You're making no sense at all. Who and in which numbers gets killed, has nothing to do with who eventually wins the war. Most of the differences in casualties come from the gigantic amount of the Allied civilian deaths, meaning, that the Axis were more determined to destroy the civilian population of their enemies. Period. --Erikupoeg (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, lets put whole winner vs. loser argument aside, it's still unbelievable Allies sustained 61 million casualties compared to only 11 million on Axis side. Are you saying that Axis soldiers had explicit orders to fire on civilians? For the sake of argument, lets subtract top end estimate of Holocaust victims (11 millions according to Wikipedia) from Allied casualties (even though there was significant number of Holocaust victims who were Axis citizens such as mentally disabled individuals, homosexuals and political opponents). That leaves us at 50 million, still significant number. Basically, all I'm doing here is challenging unreferenced content, and all I'm looking for is source. No more no less. If you (or anyone for that matter) can provide it I'll be happy. 66.237.205.34, I don't need source to question unreferenced content on Wikipedia.
Dear Melmann, if you look at the main article's table you will see that the USSR losses (within pre-war borders, in other words, most Holocaust victims are not included there) amounted 23 million, Chinese casualties were about 20 million. I don't need any sources to conclude that only these two Allied countries' losses amounted 43 million (I don't think this conclusion fits OR criteria). Therefore, the number of 61 million total Allied casualties seems quite realistic. However, if you are so concerned about that you can do some arithmetics by yourself using (sourced) data from the table... --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The bottom line of 72 million war dead is backed up with reliable sources that are verifiable line by line in the footnotes. The axis powers Germany, Japan, Italy, Romania, Hungary and Finland lost 11million, the balance of 61 million are allied losses. The figures include 20 million deaths due to war related famine and disease that are often omitted from other compilations of WW2 casualties. Go down the list to Indonesia, 4 million famine deaths caused by the war that were reported by the UN according to John W. Dower, 15-20 million dead in China according to a study published by Harvard, USSR deaths were reported by the Russian Academy of Science. Commonwealth casualties are those reported by the CWGC. German military casualties are those reported by a recent German Army study. The sources are there, just read the page.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I have learned a lot reading this page, Wikipedians from all over the planet have contributed here. Take Estonia for example. Most compilations of WW2 losses add insult to injury by omitting this country and include its losses with the USSR, A user from Estonia took the time to give us an official government report on the Soviet occupation. A user from Indonesia pointed out the UN study on the losses of 4 million under the Japanese occupation, a user from Holland recently gave us the official government figures for war losses. You won’t delete this information, trust me. This page is the result of collective effort over the years, not an unsourced table copied from the back of a pop history of WW2.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Today a user just added a neat table on losses by continent. Asia lost 24.2 million civilians. You can't delete those losses because they are documented with reliable sources in the footnotes.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
That is a good idea. I fully support it. In connection to that, I have a following question. What do you think about creation of the table (or diagram) on military losses by theater (Western front, Eastern Front, Mediterranean, China, South Asia and Pacific)? --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
How about a new page on the statistics of ww2 battles, I have plenty of sources in print sitting on my bookshelves. Also many books with details of every, I mean every, weapons system used in WW2, I am from the old school, I lived in the world before the Internet. I bought books--Woogie10w (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Please I beg you both to go to a library and become familiar with the Overmans and Krivosheev data, then we can be on the same page.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The stats on all the battles, for example how many casualties in the siege of Lennigrad, list the various estimates with sources. A page that is concise and accurate.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Trust me the idea of one schedule with all the losses by theatre will never be possible, the solution is to have each campaign and major battle on a seperate page. You will never be able to explain the bottom line, it would be OR. It will take some time but a seperate page is our answer--Woogie10w (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Military Losses of World War Two by Theare
That is a good idea. I fully support it. In connection to that, I have a following question. What do you think about creation of the table (or diagram) on military losses by theater (Western front, Eastern Front, Mediterranean, China, South Asia and Pacific)? --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
How about a new page on the statistics of ww2 battles, I have plenty of sources in print sitting on my bookshelves. Also many books with details of every, I mean every, weapons system used in WW2, I am from the old school, I lived in the world before the Internet. I bought books--Woogie10w (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
This would be great, however, this is a more detailed view than I propose. What I propose is a creation of brief and general description of different theatres in terms of the death toll. Something like that (the numbers in the table below are very approximate, they just create an overall impression and may be considered a "zero" iteration):
Military casualties for the eastern front are available. Krivosheev and Overmans have the relevant data. The catch is 1945, Overmans has combined the eastern and western fronts. The Ovemans data is for actual deaths and missing, it does not include POWs alive in captivity. The POW data is available in another work by him. The US Army losses are available in considerable detail on line. For the UK, I would need to consult the official history. In any case Clodfelter has data on all the major battles.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
You guys should create the page, I don't have a clue on setting one up. In any case before I would post any figures, I would put them on the talk page. The downside of Wikpedia is that anyone can change a number and leave the source as is. One has to keep a close watch on anything that they post.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure if I fully understand what do you mean under "the page". As regards to your comment on the numbers, I fully agree with you. We have to double check with the sources before introducing any number into the table. That is why I wrote about these numbers as an estimate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I have in mind a page with considerable detail. Take Italy for example, the official stats list casualties by month and location. The Soviet data is by quarter and by battle. Overmans has German dead listed by month and theatre and POW data by quater. For Japan, the US occupation authorities were given a breakdown of deaths by year of the war. The US stats are very detailed. The numbers on the WW2 casualties page are a mere summary of losses, the tiny tip of an iceberg sitting on my bookshelves.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
|-
|}
The figure of 1,250,000 Japanese dead vs the Allies includes 800,000 men who refused to surrender, died in jungles ect. war is hell Axis # in China includes puppet troops
--Woogie10w (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's another proposal, including the civilian dead. The civilian casualties of the Baltic States, which stayed legally neutral for the whole course of the war, are lined out separately.
I had hard time finding an outline of casualties for the Central Pacific, South East Asia and the South West Pacific, so I think, it's best to add them to the Second Sino-Japanese war. Politically, it is also correct, as all of them were driven by Japan's agression against the countries backed by the USA. For the same reason, the Western front, Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II should be presented as a joint theatre, conducted by the Western Allies without the Soviet Union.
Should we decide to list the Second Sino-Japanese War separately from the rest of the Pacific War, the theatre should not be named China and Manchuria, as Manchuria was legally part of China. Instead, it should be called simply China, as it is entirely correct. The rest of the Pacific war theatre should be called South East Asia & Pacific.
Mine are based solely on adding up the relevant figures in the footnotes of the article, except for the military losses at the Eastern Front. --Erikupoeg (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Woogie10w and Erikupoeg! Thank you very much for doing an excellent job. I have just few comments before we move further. As regards to the Woogie10w's version, I don't think it would be correct to combine the Western Front and Balkans. For instance the artilce Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II merges Balkans into Mediterranean, that seems more logical. In addition, let me remind you that in September 1944 the Balkan theatre had merged into the Eastern front. Therefore my proposal is to include the Yugoslavian numbers either into Mediterranean or to Eastern Front. What do you think about that? Combining Asia and Pacific (as proposed by Erikupoeg) may also lead to a confusion because of quite different warfare utilized in these two theatres. The war in Pacific was primarily a high-tec war: a battle of gigantic battleships, carriers and strategic bombers. This war of economics and technologies was a miniscule skirmish in terms of human losses (of course, not in the absolute numbers, but compared to other WWII theatres), so the strategic implication of the Pacific battles were much greater that the death toll. In contrast, the SSJW was a war between the not-very-technologically-advanced Japanese army and very poorly armed Chinese army, that lead to immense human losses, although the only strategic result of these bloody seesaw was tying down Japanese army and preventing its further advance into India or the assault on the USSR. In other words instead of one theatre we have two: one of them is very famous although not very lethal, whereas another one very lethal although almost unknown. As regards to the concern about original research, I see no appreciable difference between our exercises and the Human Losses of World War Two by Continent table (already in the article). Of cource, out exercises are "for internal use" so far. When we come to the consensus on the overall table (or diagram) view, the sources will be absolutely needed. This will be already the next step, however. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the division between the Pacific theatre and the China & Southeast Asia theatre. Should we as well separate the Atlantic theatre from the Western Front and Scandinavia? --Erikupoeg (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Problem A the 1945 figure for German losses is not broken out by East & Wset, Problem B the UK Commonwealth #s are not breken out at all, thats why I say OR--Woogie10w (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Eastern Front (World War II) also appears to include the casualties of the Belgrade Offensive and Manchuria Offensive, which don't belong to the Eastern Front. Anyway, we can't publish the casualties by theatre until we have a geographic breakdown of the 1945 losses in the German army and the breakdown by theatre of the Commonwealth and U.S. casualties. --Erikupoeg (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't despair, please take a look at the Overmans book. Even if you cant read German you should be able to understand his tables with a dictionary. The book is a gold mine of data on German casualties, if you guys are near a large library check it out. If you have plenty of money, buy it.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
To Woogie10w. I am not sure the figure on 1945 German casualties were taken from Overmans, because the ref 47 quotes both Overmans' and Overy's books. Therefore, it is not clear where certain number came from. In addition, Glantz also provides some numbers on German losses in 1945, separately for East and West. I am not sure how accurate they are, but they are approximately proportional to the number of western and eastern German troops, therefore they look trustworthy. I think until we don't try to give the numbers with too hugh accuracy, we can easily avoid any accusation in doing OR, because approximate numbers are available.
To Erikupoeg. Although it is incorrect to combine Balkans and Eastern Front before september 1944, it would be equally incorrect to separate them after that date, because Belgrade offensive was a continuation of the Red Army's Yassy-Kishinev offensive (and became possible exclusively due to it). As regards to the Manchurian offensive, it seems to be that the editors of the SSJW article refuse to combine it with SSJW, limiting the latter with the conflict between Japan and ROC. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
My advice is to check the original source in print, never ever trust a post on Wikipedia unless it is verified. Where does Glantz provide these numbers? and what description does he give them?--Woogie10w (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
We are dealing with apples and oranges here. The German figures of Overmans and the Soviet figures of Krivosheev are not directly comparable . We should present the figures as is, without any OR in order to plug them on a table. BTY Glantz considers the Soviet offensive in the Balkans in 1944-45 as part of the Eastern front, Overmans apparently does not. ( I have read Glantz's books and I have them here for reference)--Woogie10w (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
You are right, of course. The German equivalent of Krivosheev is Muller-Hillebrand, not Overmans. However, if I am not wrong, it that concrete article the Soviet numbers are taken from Erlikman, who is closer to Overmans in his approach to casualties calculation (both of them give larger numbers than Muller-Hillebrand and Krivosheev do). However, I don't think it is so important. To my opinion, even the current precision allow us to create a table(s) or diagram that will demonstrate two major points:
In terms of military casualties (from both sides) WWII was primarily the Eastern front war.
In terms of civilian deaths WWII was primarily the tragedy of the "Greater Soviet Union" (this is not a political definition, I just mean the USSR and all countries fallen into her "sphere of influence") and Republic of China. Since both of these conclusion are not obvious for the English speaking audience, and, taking into account that, according to the contemporary point of view, human life is the major and ultimate value, I think, that such a table would be highly appropriate to several WWII articles. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Please I beg you both to go to a library and become familiar with the Overmans and Krivosheev data, then we can be on the same page.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I am still waiting for answer to my question:Where does Glantz provide these numbers? and what description does he give them?---Woogie10w (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I know Krivosheev from first hand and Overmans from <http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=3613>. It's still impossible to separate the German losses by theatre, starting from January 1, 1945, as Overmans treats Germany, 1945 as a single theatre. Should we follow his logic, we should list Europe in 1945 separately as a theatre, which would be a manageable solution. Otherwise, we couldn't escape calculations from Overman's numbers. A simple way of dividing Overmans' German losses in 1945 would be as stated by David M. Glantz's "The Soviet-German War 1941-1945: Myths and Realities":"from 1 January to 30 April 1945 the Germans suffered another 2 million losses, two-thirds at Soviet hands." Overmans gives 1,230,045 as the number of German dead in 1945. Two thirds of them, which would account for the Eastern Front, would be 820,030 and 410,015 for the Western and Mediterranean theatres. The numbers are within the accuracy of +/-100,000, which is, what we need.
One more remedy would be adding the "Undetermined by theatre" or "Various" row to the table, including the garbage and other casualties not linkable to a theatre. That way we could present only the numbers, which undisputedly belong to a certain theatre. Naturally, the numbers in the row should be kept as low as possible, meaning that we should still make an effort of linking as many losses to the theatres as we can. The "Undetermined" row is part of a standard way of making a balance.
Concerning the Yugoslav Front: Paul, I think you're theoretically right, that the Yugoslav Front starting from the Belgrade Offensive belongs to the Eastern Front. Do you suggest shifting the entire count of dead on the Yugoslav front, 1941-1945 to the Eastern Front? Otherwise we'd be in trouble finding a source splitting the Yugoslav losses before and after Sept, 1944.
Concerning Soviet invasion of Manchuria: definitely not part of Eastern Front but part of Chinese theatre of war. --Erikupoeg (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Woogie10w, I draw a parallel between Muller-Hillebrand and Krivosheev because both of them relied mostly on the military archives during their works, whereas Overmans' and Erlikhman's view seems to be broader. As regards to Glantz, the fragment quoted by Erikupoeg is exactly what I meant, and I fully agree with the Erikupoeg conclusions. In addition, I believe, in his books Glantz provided the more detailed data. Therefore, since Glantz mentioned the losses in his review lecture, I conclude such a data (probably, not as accurate as the Overmans' data) do exist. As I already pointed out, Overy might also give some numbers in his book (ref 47, Eastern Front). Anyway, you are right, we definitely need to read more sources. Dear Erikupoeg, your proposal on "Undetermined" may not be necessary, if we add appropriate notes to other numbers. For instance, to the Yugoslav numbers we can add ("before Belgrade offensive"). To the Chinese theatre the comment ("including Manchurian offensive"). As regards to the latter, it wouldn't be correct to add it to the SSJW implicitly, because the editors of the corresponding WP page refuse to include the USSR (not the Soviet volunteers) into the belligerent list, although the battle itself is currently included. When I proposed to rectify the situation in one or the another way, the editor's opition was to separate this battle out of the SSJW. Taking into account this fact, we need to do the explicit statement on Manchuria if we include these numbers into the Chinese theatre. However, I don't think it to affect the picture much, because the Soviet losses were minor there (as compared to the Eastern Front), and Japanese POWs' post-war mortality cannot be included either (as far as I understand). --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
About Yugoslavian front: where are we gonna get data on Yugoslavian death toll before and after September 1944? All we get from Krivosheev are the 4300 irrecoverable Soviet losses in the Belgrade Offensive.
By the way, Krivosheev lists the deaths of 4,273,000 Axis military (Germany, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Finland) KIA, MIA, and non-combat reasons on the Soviet-German front, 22.6.1941 - 9.5.1945, and 579,900 Axis deaths among the prisoners, captured in the same period on the Soviet front. These are realistic numbers, but can we cite Krivosheev as the reference for the Axis death toll?
Concerning the Soviet invasion to Manchuria: It is one thing to list the Soviet invasion as part of the Sino-Japanese war (which certainly raises concerns) and another to list the deaths in the Soviet invasion as part of the Chinese theatre of war (which is unquestionable). And the post-war Japanese deaths in Soviet captivity are already listed among the Japanese death toll and will be listed among the Chinese theatre of war. --Erikupoeg (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't propose to add Yugoslavian death toll to the Eastern front, just Soviet and German (if the latter are available). In any case, this doesn't seem to change the overall picture much. The Krivosheev's number of 4,273,000 is hardly a result of the Krivosheev group's own research, they probably took it somewhere. I'll try to find the source this data came from. As regards to Manchuria, the definition of the Chinese theatre seems vague, and re-appearance of the Manchurian offensive in the list of SSJW battles clearly demonstrate this. Sometimes people use to consider Chinese theatre to be equivalent to the SSJW, however, it is not the case. To avoid such a confusion, I think it is necessary to define the term "Chinese theatre" separately, namely, SSJW+Manchuria.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Krivosheev presents a detailed account of the Axis death toll on the Soviet-German front, based on the German war graves data, German War Archives and Russian historical archives. --Erikupoeg (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
OK I see your number, it could be used. Any adjustments made would have to be listed in detail and explained with sources. This is far more complicated than you guys realize. Go for it, make a table and drop in the numbers, put the sources at the bottom of the page. Lets see how it looks, all 72 million by theatre of war. --Woogie10w (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
One point I want to emphasize is that any numbers posted should be sourced and explained. For example if you say 4,555,000 were killed in zone A. You should clearly spell out the details of that figure with sources. That means the reader will be able to pull out a calculator and add figures and then go to the library to verify the source. Thats why I love Wikipedia, everything is subjected to scrutiny.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The number still lacks pre-Operation Barbarossa Axis losses, being German deaths and MIA in the invasion of Poland (16,600) and Finnish deaths in Winter War (26,662). Although they are not part of the Eastern Front in the strict meaning, they are the early part of the Eastern European theatre, which we call the theatre of Eastern Front. And they would be too small to present as a separate theatre. So the number of Axis deaths in the theatre of Eastern Front would be 16,700 + 26,600 + 4,273,000 + 579,900 = 4,896,200. --Erikupoeg (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
16,700 - "Wojna Obronna Polski 1939" ("Polish Defence War 1939, in Polish), page 851 gives 16,343 as German Armed Forces KIA and 320 as MIA.
26,700 - "Talvisodan historia 4" (History of Winter War 4, in Finnish), page 406 gives 26,662 as the Finnish dead.
4,273,000 - Krivosheev 4,273,000 Axis military (Germany, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Finland) KIA, MIA, and deaths for non-combat reasons on the Soviet-German front, 22.6.1941 - 9.5.1945
I will help with this project tomorrow and Sunday. We need to build a table, drop in the figures with sources and notes. Today, I will be at work, droping in the figures with sources and notes for my boss.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is the account for the Allied military deaths on the Eastern Front theatre:
10,700,000 Soviet military deaths and MIA in World War II - Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke
239,800 Polish military deaths - Gniazdowski, Mateusz. Losses Inflicted on Poland by Germany during World War II
2,170 Czech partisan deaths - Pacner, K. Osudove okamziky Ceskoslovenska (Decisive Moments of Czechoslovakia; in Czech), p.270
12,400,000 Soviet civilians (in 1939 borders) - Russian Academy of Sciences. "Lyudskie poteri SSSR v period vtoroj mirovoj voiny" (Human Losses of USSR in Period of Second World War, in Russian) p.144
313,798 inhabitants of Latvia and Lithuania killed in Latvia - Великая Отечественная война. 1941-1945 (Great Patriotic War. 1941-1945. Encyclopaedia in Russian), p.398, cit. Krivosheev
370,000 inhabitants of Lithuania killed in Lithuania - Военно-исторический журнал (Military History Journal; in Russian) 1990, No 6. p. 23., cit. Krivosheev
Total: 732,798 inhabitants of neutral countries killed in the Eastern Front theatre
I mean, this is only the Eastern Front data not even discussed yet (and I'm exhausted). We don't have other theatres lined out and summed up yet. We certainly don't have such detailed data about every campaign of the WWII. Or did you have in mind separating Poland, 1939 as a theatre? --Erikupoeg (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Trust me the idea of one schedule with all the losses by theatre will never be possible, the solution is to have each campaign and major battle on a seperate page. You will never be able to explain the bottom line, it would be OR. It will take some time but a seperate page is our answer--Woogie10w (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I mean, the original idea was to make a table, listing deaths by theatre of war. I'm not quite following the Battle casualties of World War II idea. For example, it sounds wrong to list Holocaust deaths in Russia as part of battle casualties of the Eastern Front. --Erikupoeg (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that the numbers on your table would not be explainable without a series of detailed footnotes. We can't just post a figure and tell readers to go to the discussion page for the details, that is not how Wikipedia works.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Military losses by theatre (part II)
Dear Erikupoeg,
Sorry for non participating in your excellent work during last two days. I generally agree with your major points. I just have some comments and proposal that (hopefully) can simplify the work.
First, we can overcome many problems if we reduce the accuracy of the data. As a result, accusations in OR can be readily avoided. We may and have to do this, because the precision is limited with the less precise data. If we sum up 10,700,000 Soviet military death with 1,036 Finnish Lapland death we get 10,700,000, not 10,701,036: the error is the Soviet numbers absorbs Finnish casualties. That is why I propose to sum up everything in each category and to round the sum to the 50,000 or 100,000.
Second, I propose to consider combining Finnish, Estonian etc casualties in the "others" caterogy. Finland wasn't the Axis member, the Finns waged their own war (although thy were the co-belligerents of Geramny, not the Axis). I think, the same it true for Estonia: these numbers cannot be added to the Allies, but would be incorrect put it into the Axis category.
My greatest concern is connected to the 1945 German casualties in the West. In connection to that, let's see at the Krivosheev's numbers again.
Krivosheev's Eastern front casualties (3640800) plus Overmans' West (339957, before 1945) plus Overmans' "Various" (546145 ) plus Onermans' dead POWs (459475) give 4986377 plus unknown casualties inflicted by Western allies during 1945. Formally, we can just subtract 4986377 from 5533000 (total German military deaths) to get 546000 as an approximate numbers of 1945 German losses in the west. However, the question remains, can we compare Overmans' and Krivosheev's data directly. For the period of 1941-1944 Krivosheev gives 1998000 German KIA/MIA, whereas Overmans gives 2742909, so the Overmans' numbers are even greater, although Krivosheev includes the numbers for January 1945 also. By contrast, for the 1945 the Krivosheev's numbers are greater (1606800 vs 1230045). Therefore, although the overall Krivosheev's and Overmans' numbers are very close, the data for different periods differ considerably. We need to discuss if it is possible to extract the data for the west from them. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Generally agree with creating the "Others" faction, but propose to name it "Neutral or co-belligerent" for to be clear. --Erikupoeg (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Please listen to me, any number must be transparent. You cannot refer readers to the talk page for the details. If you say X number died, there must be a trail of sources that are available to the reader. That means if X=a+b+c. a,b and c must be in the footnotes to your schedule In other words it must be just like the statement you get from the bank. otherwise it is OR --Woogie10w (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You will not be able to allocate the 583,000 Commonwealth deaths. The CWGC data does not give a breakdown as to the location.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Another point I would like to reinterate, please I beg you to refer to Overmans in print. You really need to understand that he clearly states that 1945 losses cannot be allocated, that is what the source says in black and white. Also take a look at the Krivosheev table 196 where he allocates total German losses in all theaters. Krivosheev and Overmans are not comparable, you cannot reconcile these sources.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The bottom line is this, we can say in broad general terms that 80% of German casualties were on the Eastern front. That is what our sources tell us. Read Overmans.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Go to page 275 of Overmans, he clearly states that because losses were so great and documents in diagreement that an accurate allocation between east & west was not possible. He believes that furthur research is necessary on the casualties in 1945. On the same page he mentions that total German deaths on the East front were " in total about 4 million" --Woogie10w (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Following Overmans, by the Allied forces entering Germany in late 1944, the Eastern Front ceased to exist as a separate theatre of war. Europe became a joint theatre. Listing "Europe, 1945" as a separate theatre would solve the problem for German deaths. --Erikupoeg (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Krivosheev claims 313,000 Latvians killed by the Germans, give me a break, they guy is a mouthpiece for Soviet era propaganda. As if the Soviets were not responsible for for most of those 313,000 in Latvia. The man is still a red bureaucrat to the core.--Woogie10w (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
So we can use the Krivosheev's Latvian and Lithuanian numbers as the whole of civilian losses in the countries, although they may be exaggerated. For example, for Estonia, Krivosheev gives over 60,000 civilian deaths, whereas the Estonian State Commission lists 49,000. Probably Krivosheev's numbers include the people transported to the Baltic concentration camps from outside the Baltic states. Actually, according to the footnotes, Erlikman gives lower numbers for Latvian and Lithuanian civilian losses, which we could use instead, but I haven't checked the original.--Erikupoeg (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Woogie10w, I am not so pessimistic. If Overmans states that the 1945 losses cannot be allocated it doesn't mean they cannot be estimated. If Overy, Glantz or Krivosheev present some numbers we can use them without a risk of OR accusations. By the way, at the low accuracy level they do not contradict each other. As I already pointed out, the problems appear only when we try to be too precise. The only thing we have to agree about is the precision level at which we are free of errors.
Latvian and other similar losses can go into the "Other" category (as I proposed above), along with the Finns etc. As I pointed above, they were neither the Allies nor Axis. Therefore, this problem can be easily avoided too.
On German losses in theatres outside the Eastern Front: It appears, we do not have sources, which give us the German losses in Western Europe. I know neither Overmans nor Glantz do. Using Glantz's estimation (2/3 of Germany, 1945 losses in the Eastern Front) would be correct, but would it be OR?
If we come to a consensus on the above questions, the only problem will be the allocation of the US/UK deaths. Do you think there is no way to circumvent it? --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
You could never explain to a reader how the number was derived 6 months from now, unless you had a table with every country and each theatre listed with detailed footnotes. In other words a new article with a table similar to the one on WW2 casualties.--Woogie10w (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Copy and paste the main table onto an Excel spreadsheet and allocate the numbers. Where would you put Italian losses? India? The USA? The UK? The French and Dutch had losses in Asia also. Your project is far more complicated than you realize--Woogie10w (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
You can check out the current state of the project at Battle casualties of World War II. We are generally done with the casualties at the Eastern Front, while having trouble with breaking up the US and Commonwealth casualties for the rest of the theatres. --Erikupoeg (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Estonian casualties
Woogie10w, you're missing something on the Table 2 of the White Book of Estonian losses - it does not list deaths but irreversible losses. So the deaths will have to be taken from taking relevant numbers from the book. For instance, the irreversible losses caused by the fleeing of people includes the deaths of them during the escapes, which are estimated on Page 35. Another issue is the deaths due to Soviet reoccupation, which took place during the war. --Erikupoeg (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Table 2 is the summary of Estonian losses, the figure of 7,000 is not included there, it is "claimed" on page 35. If we include post war losses for Estonia up until 1953, then all others, including the USSR and China need to added. Our figure will then be near 80 million.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
In fact the people who died during the fleeing are included in the irreversible losses and so should this page include the best available estimate of such deaths.
Currently no post war deaths are proposed for Estonia, only the ones in 1944-1945. Just like the Soviet figure includes famine deaths in 1945.--Erikupoeg (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but our source does not giveus a breakout between 1944-45 and 1946-89. We have no no number to post, we can't just guess. --Woogie10w (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Not true. Page 31: "In the years 1944—45, ca 10,000 men were imprisoned, half of whom died during the first two years." --Erikupoeg (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Considering the escapees: you should at least include the "In the air raids in Germany ca 1000 Estonians were killed (see Horm, Arvo, 1995, 179). — Up to 1200 of those who tried to reach Germany by sea in autumn 1944 might have drowned (see Ernits, 1995, 107)". --Erikupoeg (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Simple logic tells us, The Estonian White Book is the official source. Table 2 in that source is the summary of all losses. Simple logic tells us, we must use the figures on table 2, whats the problem? Is the White Book wrong?--Woogie10w (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The Table 2 is correct for not "Deaths" but "Irreversible losses". In the case of the refugees, the Irreversible losses include both the people dying during their escape and the ones managing out alive. Table 2 is useless in such cases. The White book gives "7,000 escapee deaths" as best available guess. --Erikupoeg (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
English is my native langauge. When I read "fled" that means they went to the west, Finland or Sweden. There is no indication at all that they died, the desccription "irreversable losses" means that the population declined by that amount.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright, looks straight now, although should keep my eyes open for the people perishing while trying to escape to Sweden and Finland. --Erikupoeg (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
That's how my dentist from 45 years ago got out, she said planes were shooting at the boat. My mom and her were friends.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Ethiopia
Concerning the naming of Ethiopia, shouldn't it be the "Ethiopian Empire" which existed at the time of WWII rather than the republic which is about two decades old? Elfalem (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Philippine Casualties
Many references said that the casualties in the Philippines is over 100,000 not 90,000.
![[23]](http://www.nimh.nl/nl/images/1942-Korps%20Insulinde_tcm5-3541.jpg){kind=link}
