Talk:World War II casualties: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:05, 16 April 2010 editWoogie10w (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers23,511 editsm →soviet conscripts ← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:18, 16 April 2010 edit undoBlablaaa (talk \| contribs)2,430 edits →soviet conscripts Next edit →
Line 215:		Line 215:

	::Read Overmans Deutsche Militaristche Verluste, he has a solid analysis of the topic, also see his book on German POWs Rüdiger Overmans: Soldaten hinter Stacheldraht. Deutsche Kriegsgefangene des Zweiten Weltkriegs. Ullstein Tb., 336 Seiten, März 2002.. You can take the figues from both books and compare them to Krivosheev. Back in 1969 in Germany I met a former German POW in the the USSR who said he survived because local people offered them food, he said many men died in transit. His camp was run by Soviet Volga Germans.--] (]) 02:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)		::Read Overmans Deutsche Militaristche Verluste, he has a solid analysis of the topic, also see his book on German POWs Rüdiger Overmans: Soldaten hinter Stacheldraht. Deutsche Kriegsgefangene des Zweiten Weltkriegs. Ullstein Tb., 336 Seiten, März 2002.. You can take the figues from both books and compare them to Krivosheev. Back in 1969 in Germany I met a former German POW in the the USSR who said he survived because local people offered them food, he said many men died in transit. His camp was run by Soviet Volga Germans.--] (]) 02:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
			:::my grandpa ( stalingrad area not inside stalingrad ) said that many died while transit. but this were often the guys already exhausted and so on. than later food supply wasnt good. but i think where he was many died but not compared to other "reports". than i thank u for investing time and answering questions. Danke ] (]) 02:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:18, 16 April 2010

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.

Article policies

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

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

Death B‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archives/2009/August

/Archives/2009/September

/Archives/2009/November

/Archives/2009/December

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

"Jewish Holocaust deaths"

Shouldn't this table represent not just the Jewish deaths but the total concentration camp deaths including gypsies, political prisoners etc. I am not trying to belittle the holocaust but this does give a skewed version of history suggesting that only Jews died as a result of persecution. Obviously the best compromise would be including both with total deaths and those of which are Jewish are in brackets.212.183.140.52 (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for each country for the total concentration camp deaths including gypsies, political prisoners etc? --Woogie10w (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The first statement appears correct; the numbers should consider and be representative of all victims of the holocaust regardless of ethnicity.

Regarding format, would it not be more appropriate to describe this with military, civilian and holocaust deaths? The holocaust is already well covered in a another article, if appropriate to show here it should be in a format describing total holocaust deaths with Jewish casualties shown in brackets.

How hard is accurate data on non-Jewish holocaust deaths to find? Would it not be equally difficult to gather data on both sets ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.6.19 (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue of including non-Jewish victims with the Holocaust is a matter disputed by scholars. There is no one set of figures with a reliable source for non-Jewish victims that we can include with the Holocaust. --Woogie10w (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

...and occupied terriotries.

I removed these words for two reasons. First, there is no consensus in reliable sources on whether the Baltic states were a part of the USSR or not. For instance, Encyclopaedia Britannica online states.

"It consisted, in its final years, of 15 soviet socialist republics that gained independence at its dissolution: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belorussia (now Belarus), Estonia, Georgia (now Republic of Georgia), Kazakhstan, Kirgiziya (now Kyrgyzstan), Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia (now Moldova), Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. It also contained 20 autonomous soviet socialist republics: 16 within Russia, 2 within Georgia, 1 within Azerbaijan, and 1 within Uzbekistan."

therefore, the rationale for addition ("were not a part of the USSR") is controversial.
Second, it is not clear, which "occupied territories" are meant.
I believe, in this case the USSR is more statistical rather than political category, therefore, no additional specification is needed.
My conclusion is that in this particular case the words "and occupied terriotries" are controversial, confusing and redundant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There is consensus that as a matter of fact, the Baltics were part of the Soviet Union while the posession was illegal. While it makes statistical sense to account everything going on in the Baltics in 1945 - August 1991 within the Soviet budgets, there is no justification for that for the period of July 1941 - 1944 when the Baltics were neither controlled by nor legally part of the Soviet Union. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If "occupied territories" refer to pre-1941 territories only, I agree that you may be right.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason why I inserted that table is to alert readers to the fact that the figure of 26.6 million included the territories annexed. We really should try to avoid a petty edit war over such a minor issue. The expression "occupied territories" is redundant. Also Poland and the USSR did not sign a treaty of transfer until Aug 1945, legally those lands were Polish during the war.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So why would one account the casualties of the territories as Soviet? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Because many sources have the figure of 26.6 million, we need to provide its details. Readers will see that the occupied territories are included in this often quoted figure. We are being neutral, all we are doing is explaining the components of the statistic. We are not justifiying the occupation; in fact the main table pulls the Baliics from the USSR total!--Woogie10w (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Also we need point out that many sources make the gross error of duplicating Polish and Soviet losses. We often see English language sources with the war dead of Poland of 6 million and the USSR 27 million, the Baltic’s are omitted. Polish sources make it clear that their statistic includes the borders of 1939, the Russian/USSR figures are for the de facto borders in 1941. We need to get the numbers right and avoid a foolish duplication. This is Accounting 101.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a little note that should end our dispute.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it is a solution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking for family

I am looking for brothers, sisters, grandchildren or neices or nephews of Rose Hrom. She was born in the Ukraine to Jahn and Helena Hrom. Her sibling are Mary, Anna, Nicoli and Kashka. She lost track of her family when she was parted during the war. Please help us find our family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.121.82 (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I was told by former Soviet citizens that in the postwar era the Soviet press ran inquiries by persons looking for missing relatives. The files of these newspapers may have your answer. The Ukrainian Red Cross may also be of assistance. My own family has been in the USA for generations and I have no direct experience dealing with those missing in WW2.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I did some research on Ancestry.com and found a Hildegard and Wolodymyr Hrom arriving in the US in Jan 1952. Are they related to you? --Woogie10w (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead image

Can anyone say why is the File:Buna.jpg in the lead? It looks quite random and should be replaced by one of the famous pictures of massacres or grave fields.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a great photo. How do the Austrailians feel?--Woogie10w (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Great or not - What does a photo of a man with his eye covered convey in terms of tens of millions of deaths in the WWII? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets get some other opinions before we change the pix--Woogie10w (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the lead image must be typical. More losses were sustained by the Allies then by the Axis; the most bloody theatres were Eastern front or China; majority of peoples killed were civilians, not military. The present photo meets only a first criterion. In my opinion, the lead photo should show death of Allied civilians in Eastern Front or China.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Are there any proposed pix to view?--Woogie10w (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A File:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg fits all these criteria. The only drawback is that the picture describes the Holocaust, thus supporting a common stereotype that equates WWII civilian deaths and the Holocaust's death. However, if my proposal is supported in general, I'll try to find something else.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

In other words switch places of the pix?--Woogie10w (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, at least until we find a better candidate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

paul makes perfect sense to me. I don't support File:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg for his reasoning so let's find non-Holocaust candidates. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I got another idea: let's think about a collage. The article's subject is so broad that it hardly can be illustrated by a single image.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

How much space will this collection take up?--Woogie10w (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

So is anyone going to make the collage or will we change the lead image to another? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you propose? Please try to avoid an Eastern European edit war like the nightmare at the EEML. That would be like infesting the page with bedbugs.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There will be no edit war at least not from my side as I am not promoting any specific image. I just agree with Paul Siebert's reasoning, that it would have to be an image of civil casualties from the Eastern Front, as the greatest casualties were suffered there, while it should not be an image on the Holocaust not to promote the common misconception of the Holocaust as equalling to Eastern Front civilian casualties. The above considered, I am open for any proposed images. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

OK lets see the pix, we had a pix Lamenting the Dead(that I had put up in 2006) but it was pulled down because of a copyright issue--Woogie10w (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Woogie10w. Please, keep in mind that Jaan was not a member of EEML. Noone is intended to launch any edit war here. With regards to a collage, I can try to prepare it (I am collecting pictures now), however, I probably need two or three more weeks for that (I am rather busy in my real life).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Albania Jewish Holocaust deaths

In Albania during World War II was not killed any Jew. this thing can find hundreds of books written on this issue.http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Irvi_Hyka —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 21:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read the footnote, the Jews from Albania were Yugoslav nationals resident in Albania. Holocaust victims are counted by country of residence; not by nationality. For example the 83,000 French Holocaust victims were not French citizens but refugees from Germany or Poland. Again please read the footnote on Albania, the figure of 200 is quite correct. --Woogie10w (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Jewish deaths were not caused by the war.

Jewish holocaust wasn't a direct result of military action by either side. In reality, little to no jews died as a result of war (bombings, combat etcetera). My reasoning is that if we were to include jews that died in the camps or otherwise, we'd also have to include other millions of people that died in Russian gulags, or in American concentration camps for Japanese in the US, they like the jews in national-socialist camps, died because of ill care for their lives. As such, I judge that their deaths should not be included in this article since it relates to deaths caused by the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.80.66.199 (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Most sources do in fact include Jewish Holocaust deaths with overall losses during WW2, if you desire to exclude them you can subtract them from the total on your own spreadsheet, its simple math. --Woogie10w (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The article isn't limited to combat casualties. (Hohum ) 18:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well if it isn't limited to military casualties then the article shouldn't be named World War II casualties. But again, if you insist in including the jewish holocaust, you should include all other holocausts/atrocities casualties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.80.78.190 (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Plese take the time to read the notes and footnotes and I believe you will find your concerns addressed. --Woogie10w (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't insist on anything other than reflecting what is included in source material on casualties associated with WWII. This article does just that. The sources clearly link the casualties included with the war, whatever your personal opinions. (Hohum ) 20:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

soviet conscripts

can any one provide sources giving the estimated number for these conscripted died on eastern front? the eastern front article now includes them as civilians losses and dont mention them anywhere on military casualties. thanks for helpBlablaaa (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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 causes plus an estimated 500,000 MIA and 1,283,000 POW dead out of 4,059,000 total POW captured

Source: G. I. Krivosheev. Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses. Greenhill 1997 ISBN 1-85367-280-7

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"

Source: Richard Overy, Russia's War: A History of the Soviet Effort: 1941-1945, Penguin Books, 1998, ISBN 0-14-027169-4

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.

Source: Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5-93165-107-1

The estimate by western historians of Soviet military POW deaths is about 3.3 million out of 5.7 million total POWs in German hands

Source: US Holocaust Memorial Museum

Do the math, the figure of 8.7 million war dead includes 1.3 million POW, not the 3 million estimated by western historians.

I hope this answers your question.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

First, thank you. "Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004." is this the only source supporting 1,5 million of these conscripts? Blablaaa (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The following Russian academic source goes has a detailed discussion of Soviet losses in the war. Mikhalev presents a convincing argument that the official figures are flawed and unreliable. Mikhalev points out that the total missing , POW and dead were actually 13.6 million not the 11.9 million reported in the official figures listed in Krivsheev.

Liudskie poteri v Velikoi Otechestvennoi voine 1941- 1945 gg: Statisticheskoe issledovanie by S. N Mikhalev Krasnoiarskii gos. pedagog. universitet • 2000 ISBN: 978-5-85981-082-6

BTW I have a copy of Mikhalev's book if we need to discuss the details.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

so u think they should be mentioned on the eastern front page? there is not even a note about them in the table for military losses Blablaaa (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You may want to do so--Woogie10w (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Dont understand your sentence. What is your opinion? Blablaaa (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that you can include them on the eastern front page if you want to, the information is supported by the sources I have listed.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm. if it would be your choise would u include or not? i dont want to make changes without backup when this issue is disputed. Blablaaa (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not disputed, it is backed up by reliable sources that can be verified.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Note well on Misplaced Pages I am not a source for the information you post, I have listed reliable sources that can be verified that put total Soviet POW losses at about 3 million not the 1.3 million listed in the official 1989 figures in Krivsheev's book.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

the 1.5 million died not only as POWs. what does literatur say about this? Blablaaa (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source for your statement--Woogie10w (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

which statement? i ask u what the literatur says about this conscripts. not all of them could have died as POWs little/some/many/most of them died in combat. The eastern front article seperates combat deaths and POW deaths so it would be good if there is an estimation how much died in combatBlablaaa (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see the footnotes and the sources cited 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. From a Soviet POV they were listed as missing, some may have died on the battlefield others as POW, they had no way of separating KIA from POW dead.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes i know. does your literatur break down this 1.5 ? Blablaaa (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me repeat From a Soviet POV they were listed as missing, some may have died on the battlefield others as POW, they had no way of separating KIA from POW dead --Woogie10w (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

i got it the first time thats why i asked if other sources break this figure down. u sound like soviet official sources are the only source. Blablaaa (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No I never made this assertion , I have in fact cited reliable sources that refute the figure of 1.3 million POW dead listed in Krivsheevs’s book--Woogie10w (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Einmal in deutsch. Die soviets hatten gelistete Soldaten und Leute die einberufen wurden aber nicht mehr in die Bücher kamen. Davon sind scheinbar schätzungsweise 1.5 Millionen mann gestorben. Nun stellt sich die Frage ob es irgendwo eine Schätzung gibt wieviel von diesen durch Kampf gefallen sind und wieviele in deuten Gefangenenlagern ums Leben kamen. Das ist die einzige Frage die ich im Moment habe. Das sowjetische offizielle Quellen da nix zu haben, habe ich verstanden und deswegen auch nicht weiter nach diesen Quellen gefragt.... Hoffe in deutsch bin ich verständlicher. Grüße Blablaaa (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Klar, Wir konnen nicht wissen wieviel sind als Kriegsgefangner oder am Schlachtfelt gestorben. Also, die Russichen Quellen haben 1.3 million Kriegsgefangener gestorben und 2.1 million Zivilisten in Deutscland as Zwangsarbeiter gestorben. Mancher von Die Zivilisten waren in der Tat Reserven nicht am Ranglisten. Die Historiker in der West sagen das sie waren Kriegsgefangner, aber im heutigen Russland die Quellen verzeichnen diesen Verlusten als Zwangsarbeiter. --Woogie10w (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The idea Blablaaa tries to push seems obvious: to inflate Soviet military losses as much as possible thereby supporting the point of view that it was a Soviet numerical superiority and tolerance to losses that allowed them to win the war. This idea is mostly a German POV and is not shared by all scholars. The average Axis/Soviet loss ratio was 1 to 1.5, and many sources agree with that. In this particular cases, it is not correct to list as military the men who got no arms, were never assigned to any military formations, and were killed or captured before they saw any combat. They were not left unaccounted neither here nor in other WWII articles: they were listed as civilians (which seems to be more correct). In addition, I again point your attention at the Ellman & Maksudov's conclusions there . By no means these two scholars can be considered to be prone to Soviet propaganda.
And, finally, it is generally assumed to be correct to use Russian/Soviet sources for Soviet losses and German sources for German losses.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

your synthesis? Blablaaa (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC) i push nothing, i asked for the 1.5 million conscripts which died. the same conscripts which are mentioned on this page two. Blablaaa (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

normally we should avoid discussing our opinions and stick to the sources but i must ask u: " these men were killed before they saw combat so they are no military casualties" ? how can all the 1.5 million be killed without seeing any combat. sorry but your synthesis is odd for me. Please dont say i push POV, iam sure u dont like that 1.5 million soldiers/militia which died should be included ( in my opinion ) and i know why u dont like. iam not the guy who created the number i saw this number multiple times than i asked here to verify. please read what is written enough. thank u.

for any admin watching me. i did not want to start a over long discussion or make a forum. i saw these conscripts numbers and asked why they are not included. i accused nobody of being POV or something like that i only asked for the conscrips which are mentioned in the "world war II casualties" article Blablaaa (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The table of casualties lists 8.8 to 10.7 million military deaths which reflects the differing opinions of scholars on the topic. This is not our synthesis but a statement of the degree of scholarly opinion on the topic.

Bear in mind that the total killed in action, died of wounds and died of non-combat causes comes to 6.9 million. Krivosheev estimates the total MIA at 500,000 and POW dead at 1.3 million.

Western historians put POW total dead at 3.0 million, 1.7 million higher than Krivosheev.

I ask you to go to Krivosheev and reconcile the total of the men on duty in 1941, the total conscripted in the war, those discharged with those on duty at war’s end and you will come up to total losses of 10.2 million.

A Russian scholar Mikhalev in 2000 published a detailed analysis of Soviet military losses based on MOD records from the war and found that a figure of about 11 million is closer to reality. I cited this book above.

Back in May 1965 Marshal Konev stated that Soviet military war dead were 10 million.

How did this difference come about? In my opinion the figure of 8.6 million military dead is a plug. Total USSR war dead were 25.3 million (not counting an additional 1.3 million increase in infant mortality), Brezhnev era published sources listed 13.7 million civilian dead in the German occupied USSR. Soviet demographers estimated 3 million famine dead in the rear areas. Krivosheev was left with the remaining 8.6 million to explain as war dead. The statement of Marshall Konev and the detailed records at the MOD archives were ignored.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

regarding your efforts and libary i think u are an "expert" for this topic. so whats your advice for the eastern front article? 8.8-10.7 ? difficult figures...... Blablaaa (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

My advice is not to haggle over the "correct" number but to present both sides of the argument and let the readers decide. Misplaced Pages should mirror the sources, not reflect our POV.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

ok i hope Paul and I have consense then. i have a question only for me. what do u think about German POWs who died? overmans give ~1.000.000 , soviet sources ~400.000. what is your personnel opinion. iam interessted. the pure fact of the long time german POWs were held makes the ~400.000 unlikly, doesnt it? Blablaaa (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Read Overmans Deutsche Militaristche Verluste, he has a solid analysis of the topic, also see his book on German POWs Rüdiger Overmans: Soldaten hinter Stacheldraht. Deutsche Kriegsgefangene des Zweiten Weltkriegs. Ullstein Tb., 336 Seiten, März 2002.. You can take the figues from both books and compare them to Krivosheev. Back in 1969 in Germany I met a former German POW in the the USSR who said he survived because local people offered them food, he said many men died in transit. His camp was run by Soviet Volga Germans.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

my grandpa ( stalingrad area not inside stalingrad ) said that many died while transit. but this were often the guys already exhausted and so on. than later food supply wasnt good. but i think where he was many died but not compared to other "reports". than i thank u for investing time and answering questions. Danke Blablaaa (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories: