Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:24, 1 September 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the World War II casualties article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

World War II casualties was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 27, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Military history: British / European / North America / Russian & Soviet / United States / World War II B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force North American military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force United States military history task force World War II task force

• Archived discussions prior to 01.01.2006
• Archived discussions prior to 01.01.2007
• Archived discussions prior to 01.01.2008
• Archived discussions prior to 01.05.2009

Bahamas casualties

According to the book "Islanders in the Stream" by Michael Craton and Gail Saunders, 15 Bahamian servicemen were killed in WWII.

British Dead

United Kingdom and Colonies

The losses listed here are those reported by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Total military deaths were 383,677 which included Army (210,197), Air Force (84,786), Navy (59,167), Merchant Navy (28,905), and civilian auxiliary deaths (612). These losses include war related deaths during 1946-47.(16,628)

I am concerned by how these figures have been collected. None of them appear to be pieces of information one can just look up to verify.

The article states there was 382,700 military deaths however the footnote then claims the War Graves Commission's website (citation 22) states there was in fact 383,677 deaths. However going to citation 29 - the report - one finds the War Graves Commission reports only 244,621 identified burials. So three separate figures, which one is right? If the report was used as a source where do the other two figures come from? On top of which one cannot, as i have just tried, get a list or a number off the link provided by citation 22 that claims 383,677 deaths - attempting to do a search without a name just brings up an error screen.

Anyone like to clarify the situation and the alternative figures?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

CWGC total of 383,677 no longer verifiable by branch of service(web service no longer gives annual totals) The figure for Newfoundland is listed seperately, not with the UK. Total war dead were 383,677, 244,621 identified burials by CWGC and the remainder commemorated on war memorials.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The statistics tabulated The Commonwealth War Graves Commission are representative of the number of names commemorated for all servicemen/women of the Armed Forces of the Commonwealth and former U.K. Dependencies, whose death was attributable to their war service. Some auxiliary and civilian organisations are also accorded war grave status if death occurred under certain specified conditions. For the purposes of C.W.G.C. the dates of inclusion for Commonwealth War Dead are 03/09/1939 to 31/12/1947.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Note well the CWGC says death was attributable to their war service, that would mean dicharged personnel who died of wounds.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that total deaths are no longer verifiable by branch of service, I did an inquiry in 2006 and was able to pull up the figures, they no loger allow an inquiry by date range--Woogie10w (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The figure for civilan dead for the UK and Malta is limited to those civilians under Crown protection. That would exclude civilans interned in ememy nations. I have never seen a relaible source with that figure for the UK.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No problems, i didnt realise that the website use to have the feature to find out the numbers lost in each service. Its a pity that tool has been cancelled.

As for the report, i notice how you have tallied both the commemorated and the identified burials. Looking at the report again and how the end total is worked out, it is obvious that this is also what the graves commission have done. I initially dismissed that second column and thus misterpreted the data the report was showing me.

Would i be correct in stating the report claims 383,667 dead in total for the Untied Kingdom and colonies excluding missing, civvies and Dominion forces.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the response the CWGC gave me regarding their statistics The war dead totals listed in the report are based on the research by the CWGC to identify and commemorate Commonwealth war dead. The statistics tabulated The Commonwealth War Graves Commission are representative of the number of names commemorated for all servicemen/women of the Armed Forces of the Commonwealth and former U.K. Dependencies, whose death was attributable to their war service. Some auxiliary and civilian organisations are also accorded war grave status if death occurred under certain specified conditions. For the purposes of C.W.G.C. the dates of inclusion for Commonwealth War Dead are 03/09/1939 to 31/12/1947.

Figures include subjects in the colonies as well as missing an presumed dead. The small number of civilians would be those fighting with the military. I did OR using their Debt of Honour register and found an estimated 15% war dead from the colonies, including a local policeman killed in the 1940 occupation of Somaliland.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Understood. So if i wanted to present the total number of dead from the UK (inc) colonies in another article the figure talked about above would be spot on?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

383,667 dead in total for the Untied Kingdom and colonies, including Newfoundland. Source CWGC Report, which as official as you can get--Woogie10w (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for going over this.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust victims

Two issues: 1.) Why are there no numbers for total holocaust victims, only the Jewish victims? 2.) The numbers given in the article are not very close to the numbers given in the sources cited. For example, the article states that 1,000 to 2,000 Catholic clergy were killed, yet the source for Poles killed has a number of 3,000 Polish Catholic Clergy killed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.202.61 (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Most sources consider only Jews as Holocaust victims. Some sources do include non-Jewish victims of the Nazis with the Holocaust. Jews were targeted for total elimination, the other groups were not--Woogie10w (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

USHMM article cited ] states 2,720 Catholic clergy in camp, 1,034 died.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct flag and link for China?

In the table 'Human Losses of World War Two by Country', are the flag and link for China correct? They refer to China(Taiwan) but I doubt Taiwan had a population over 500,000,000 at that time, because now it as just over 70,000,000. Please correect flag and link when these are truely incorrect. --Anonymous 08:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.130.235 (talk)

The flag is correct. The Republic of China controlled most of mainland China until 1949. Kransky (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Deaths as a percentage of population have not been calculated correctly

Burma should be 1.69% New Zealand should be 0.73% —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahe2 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Mahe is correct, please change this 203.97.98.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC).

East Timor / Portugal

Just to add a small clarification on the footnote regarding Portuguese Timor as said on the list above - the footnote number 45 should also say that East Timor was a Portuguese Colony back then. Now its refered as a fact that some guerrillas where fighting there against the japanese force of ocupation. Now, is there any number on casualties and nature of that force, like, was it resistance or allied comandos? 93.108.213.157 (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Rafael V. 27/08/2009

Hi Rafael. See the Battle of Timor article. The number of Allied personnel killed in Timor during 1943–43 was about 450. That would not include Portuguese or Dutch civilian subjects, including East and West Timorese people. Portuguese and East Timorese guerrillas would be included among the 40–70,000 civilian dead. Grant | Talk 11:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Greek losses are wrong.

Military deaths 40-41 13.327 Killed + 1.237 Missing (never found)
Middle East deaths (Greek Army moved there during the War) 1.100
Deaths on battles under occupation (resistance) 20.650
Civilians executed in Greece 56.225
Civilians executed in Germany after transfer 105.000 (including some 67000 Greeks-Jews)
Deaths by bombing 7.120 (mixed but mostly Civilians)
Merchant Shipping Deaths 3.500 (Civilians)
Food shortages, massive inflation, and finally a devastating famine during especially 1941-1942 600.000+ Civilians
Grand TOTAL: 808.159 (And not 311.300 as you say)

1940 population 7.344.860
1944 population 6.805.000 instead of the normal projected 8.500.000+

Source ΜΑΥΡΗ ΒΙΒΛΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΚΑΤΟΧΗΣ - SCHWARZBUCHES DER BESATZUNG - BLACK BIBLE OF THE OCCUPATION Athens 2006
(The official document of the committee which is after the German Compensations)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2115345/-

So I believe you should re-write correctly the numbers for the Greek state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.12.199 (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked the figures, they make demographic sense. The data on the page now is from 1950 and needs to be updated. The source is official, and very detailed. Thanks so much for taking the time to post this information. --Woogie10w (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

casualties of sowjetunion

numbers from krivosheev. how much battles showed that his numbers are too low? there a much battle where german took more POWS than krivosheev gave total casualties. krivosheev is at least discussable. so many historian who worked on specific battles like glantz found out that krivosheev numbers are wrong! because of various reasons. krivosheev numbers should be used only as the lowest possible figure. for example the german office for military study first checked the book of krivosheev and started to translate. they wanted to publish in german. after they checked the figures they found out that they are prooven as to low. they stoped for publishing the book in german. but for english wiki its the major source -.- -- HROThomas (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The numbers for USSR military casualties are a range from 8.7 million to 10.7 million. Read the footnote.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2009 (UT

Military losses from 1939-1945, totaling 10.7 million, include 7.7 million killed or missing in action and 2.6 million POW dead, out of 5.7 million total POW captured, plus 400,000 paramilitary and Soviet partisan losses.Template:Mn
The official Russian Ministry of Defense figure for military deaths from 1941-1945 is 8,668,400; including 6,330,000 killed in action or died of wounds and 556,000 dead from non-combat causesTemplate:Mn plus an estimated 500,000 MIA and 1,283,000 POW dead out of 4,059,000 total POW captured Template:Mn These figues do not include additional casualties in 1939-40, which totaled 136,945: Battle of Khalkhin Gol in 1939 (8,931); Invasion of Poland of 1939 (1,139); and the Winter War with Finland (1939-40) (126,875).Template:Mn
The estimate by western historians of Soviet military POW deaths is about 3 million out of 5.7 million total POWs in German hands.Template:Mn Richard Overy has noted that " The official figures themselves must be viewed critically, given the difficulty of knowing in the chaos of 1941 and 1942 exactly who had been killed, wounded or even conscripted".Template:Mn The official Russian statistics for military dead do not include an additional estimated 1,500,000 conscripted reservists missing or killed before being listed on active strength, as well as an estimated 150,000 militia and 250,000 Soviet partisan dead, which are considered civilian war losses in the official figures.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

i read the note. and solokov estimates more than 20 milion, other estimate 17 million and others estimate 13 millions. -- HROThomas (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

krivosheev is proven wrong. hes to low, thats an accepted fact. his research is good but the archivs are no accurate. so number of 8,7 is impossible . so no need to take this number? why taking a number which is impossible ? when we know that his numbers dont include conscripted reserves and miltia and partisans , then is unclever to mention the 8.7 as an possible number because its NOT. -- HROThomas (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Right now we list Krivosheev's figures and we point out that his figures are disputed. We note that the Krivosheev figures are disputed because they don't include conscripted revervists. You wrote solokov estimates more than 20 milion That figure includes civilians as well as military dead. Do you have the Krivosheev book? If you do we can do some math together.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

We must list Krivosheev's figures because on Misplaced Pages we must list disputed sources and list nature of the dispute. The readers must decide, not the editors.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You wrote krivosheev is proven wrong. hes to low, thats an accepted fact List your source and the page. I need to verify your statement. --Woogie10w (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

iam not saying solokov is correct. krivosheev dont include these conscrips, so hes to low. everyone know this, we need no sources for this because its well known fact. when krivosheev dont includes this conscripted then u cant take his numbers for MILITARY DEATH , logic isnt it? 8.7 is too low. glantz disputes him frieser disputes him , nearly all historians which deal with one single battle point out that krivoheeh is too low. -- HROThomas (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You write we need no sources. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. On Misplaced Pages we MUST have sources for material that is disputed. All unsourced material will be deleted. --Woogie10w (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Please Read this important Misplaced Pages statement of policy Misplaced Pages:Verifiability We must list sources, no exceptions Thank you--Woogie10w (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed--Woogie10w (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Glantz , when titan clashes , Glantz Operationmars a epic desaster. Frieser Das deustche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg Band 8 . Solokov .and so on and so on -- HROThomas (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

the german office for military study, checked the book of krivosheev , first they wanted to translate in german and publish, after they checked it they find out that krivosheevs figures are to low , so they decided not to publish his book in german. -- HROThomas (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Glantz , When Titans Clash - Glantz uses the Krivosheev numbers- The are cited in detail by Glantz- I own the book, Glantz does not support your argument. --Woogie10w (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way I agree with you that Krivosheev's figures are too low, but we must include them as well as the higher figures cited by Erlikman in the footnotes.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have the Krivosheev book?--Woogie10w (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you read Russian?--Woogie10w (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Glantz DO NOT SUPPORT KRIVOSHEEV he uses his numbers but brings his own because he thinks krivosheev is too low. look Glantz operation mars. i brought more than 1 historian which states krivosheev is too low even the the office for miltary sutdy of germany is that opinion. -- HROThomas (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

On what page does Glantz say that he thinks krivosheev is too low. --Woogie10w (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

when he discusses the losses. krivo gives 70000 dead and glantz says thats to low. i dont now the page because i dont own the book i lend it. by the way its not only glantz.... -- HROThomas (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In other words you cannot cite a source, you have no source for your POV. Your statement 70000 dead and glantz says thats to low Glantz refers to only one battle, not total war casualties--Woogie10w (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

can u read? i provided without looking 3 historians who say hes too low + a whole group of historian of an office ? are u bias? when glantz for example says the casualties are wrong how can the complete casualties fit? frieser mention more then 10 battles with to low numbers. check my arguments before u write something. -- HROThomas (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class British military history articles
• British military history task force articles
• B-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• B-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• B-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• B-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles