Talk:World War II casualties/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

German losses

A figure of 3,500,000 seems more likely. Ksenon 17:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

---

You say a figure of 3.5 million is more likely and I say prove it. Explain to us why this is so.

Why German Military losses were 5.5 million:
Germany within 1937 borders had a demographic loss of 6.6 million between the 1939 and 1946, in addition the losses in Austria were about 400,000 plus we must add the military and losses of the ethnic Germans in eastern Europe of 900,000. The sources for this data are – Bevolkerungsgeschichte Deutschlands – Peter Marschalack and Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen by Gerhard Reichling. This adds up to a total demographic loss of 7.9 million that must be explained. In the 1950’s the West German government concluded at 3.3 million military deaths could be confirmed and that there were 1.3 million missing for a total of 4.6 million dead. The balance of 3.4 million deaths were civilians including 2.1 million deaths of Germans in Eastern Europe, 410,000 air raid deaths, 300,000 victims of the Nazis and the remaining 600,000 being post war losses due to famine . In 1985 research by Gerhard Reichling concluded that German civilian losses in eastern Europe had been overstated because many bilingual ethnic Germans choose to declare themselves as part of the local population, this reduced civilian losses by 700,000. In 2000 the German historian Rudiger Overmans published Deutsche militarische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkreig. Overmans is well known and highly respected German military historian. Based on a statistical analysis of German military personnel records he concluded that losses were actually 5.3 million. The increase is explained as follows: 360,000 of these losses were previously classified as civilians in eastern Europe and 230,000 were paramilitary deaths (Volkstrurm, Police ect.) . In addition, the Germans kept separate records for the Soviets volunteers in the Wehrrmacht, their losses were about 200,000.
To recap why German military losses were 5.5 million:
3.3 Million confirmed dead
1.3 Million missing in 1955
.7 Million previously classified as civilians
.2 Million Soviet volunteers
5.5 Million Grand Total

I challenge you to prove that German military losses were 3.5 million in WW2.--Berndd11222 19:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's better to operate on confirmed numbers, as the other figures could be taking into consideration the post-war casualties of Germans in POW camps. Should they be treated as military deaths, i.e. combat deaths? Ksenon 23:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This is yours: I have no time or patience to argue with you. User:Berndd11222 NO LONGER CONTRIBUTES TO WIKIPEDIA AS OF 1/15/06--Berndd11222 00:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Left you a note on your talk page. Ksenon 06:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The History Channel, which is WWII crazy and extremely accurate, says 3.5 million, and I've read that from several other sources. And remember, these are all estimates. Half the deaths in WWII weren't even recorded, so keep that in mind. --LtWinters 22:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The editors over at the History Channel need to read Rudiger Overman's Deutsche militarische Verluste. --Woogie10w 01:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Give us a breakdown of that Nr you copied

Say, what is the breakdown of the number 8.6 million that you copied. How many KIA, dead of accident & disease and MIA? Also how many POWs died in German custody? I bet you can't provide a decent answer.Berndd--64.48.59.25 10:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Check out Russia's War By Prof Richard Overy pages 155, 178 and 238

It says 8,668,000 Military Deaths

6.5 POW out of which 4 million died in captivity So 4.7 KIA, 4million dead in camps

Missing 2-3 Million

These nummbers are from what i Recall but i could be wrong I dont have the book but I have read it and my memory aint all that bad so i am quite certain these are exact.

You shouldnt bet against me, bet on horses not on people ;)

(Deng 12:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC))

G. I. Kirosheev Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses. Greenhill 1997 ISBN 1-85367-280-7 lists

the following official losses ( the data quoted by Overy) Killed in Action and dead of wounds 6,330,000; non combat deaths 556,000. Those are confirmed losses reported to the high command by the fronts. Estimated MIA were 500,000 and estimated POW dead 1.3 million. The grand total was 8.6 million. What a coincidence that this is exactly the same as Axis losses of 8.6 million as reported in Kirosheev. The USSR losses were equal to the Axis on the Eastern front, right or wrong? Pow loses were 1.3 million, right or wrong? Check your numbers before you make a change. Real losses of Pows were about 2.8 million and MIA were 500,000. Add that to 6.9 million confirmed dead and you are at 10.2 million. That does not include losses of Partisans and Milita of 400,000 ( they must be included as military not civilian losses). Berndd--68.236.161.237 12:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

estimated

First could you please post with an account replying to an ip nummber isnt good

Also the Axis nummber seems a bit high.

All I know is that prof Richard Overy went into the Soviet archives after the fall of the Soviet Unnion and those are the nummbers he reached.

Maybe your nummbers are Soviet posted nummbers before the fall of the Soviet Unnion and therefore are a bit wrong.

These are the nummbers I have on both sides and the sources are stated bellow

I also made the graphs arent they lovely :D

Military Losses On The Eastern Front During World War 2.¹

Forces Fighting FOR the Soviet Union
	Total Dead	POW Taken By The Axis	POW That Died In Captivity
Soviet	8,668,000	6,000,000	4,000,000
Poland2	40,000	Unknown	Unknown
Romania3	17,000	Unknown	Unknown
Total	8,725,000	Unknown	Unknown

Military Losses On The Eastern Front During World War 2.¹

Forces Fighting FOR the Axis
	Total Dead	POW Taken By The Soviets	POW That Died In Captivity
Greater Germany	2,415,960	4,500,000	500,000
Soviet Turncoats4	2,000,000	Unknown	Unknown
Romania	381,000	Unknown	Unknown
Hungary	136,000	Unknown	Unknown
Italy	84,830	Unknown	Unknown
Bulgaria	32,000	Unknown	Unknown
Total	5,049,790	Unknown	Unknown

Actually most of Bulgarian casualties were on the Allied side, after 09.09.1944, when there was a Communist coup in the country. --85.130.127.137 00:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

1 All nummbers are taken from A: The Swedish Translation of "Campaigns of World War II : Day by Day" which is written by Chris Bishop and Chris Mcnab, pages 244-252 B: Russia's War by Prof. Richard Overy , page 238

You are wasting your time copying numbers, pal. berndd11222

I dont understand, what do you mean?

If you think the nummbers are wrong then I would be very happy to hear you oppinion :D I dont mean that in any sarcastic way or nothing like that because I would be very happy to talk nummbers with someone who actually knows them and it seems that you do :D

And am I your pal :D

(Deng 00:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)) Official losses ( the data quoted by Overy) Killed in Action and dead of wounds 6,330,000; non combat deaths 556,000. Those are confirmed losses reported to the high command by the fronts. Estimated MIA were 500,000 and estimated POW dead 1.3 million. The grand total was 8.6 million. What a coincidence that this is exactly the same as Axis losses of 8.6 million Think before you copy a number. The number of 8.6 million includes only 1.3 POWs. The actual number of Soviet POW dead was close to 3 million. The number of 8.6 million is not credible even though it is official. A Russian source from 2004 Vadim Erlikman( which is listed in the footnotes) lists 7.6 combat deaths and MIA, 2.6 million Pow dead plus 400,000 partisan and Milita losses . This is believable not the Soviet MOD plug of 8.6 million published in 1989. They were trying to minimize Soviet losses to make their performance look better. Take a serious look at the issue and you will realize that I am correct. Berndd--66.2.160.35 02:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I see where you got the 10.6 now from ;) 7.6+2.6+0.4

But you have MIA also in that nummber. In the nummbers I have I ONLY have DEATHS

Can you seperate the MIA and the Deaths? Because a missing person could be one of those who chose to join the axis in Vlasov army

And if only 3 million died as POW then how many Soviet POW were taken by the axis?

(Deng 11:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

The 8.6 Million is broken down as follows. 6.330,000 KIA & died of wounds ie. combat deaths; 556,000 died of disease, accidents or executed by Soviets; 500,000 estimated MIA and 1.3 million estimated POWs. This does not include 212,000 " missing in interior districts" read this as deserters.
The Germans captured 5,735,000 POWS and the Soviets liberated 2,776,000 men in camps or behind the lines. In 1941 the Soviets called up all draft age men but many were not registered with the High Command in Moscow. So technically they were civilians if they died as German POWs. The Soviets lost 17 million draft age men and 4 million women in the same age group. The Soviets have been known for fuzzy math. The 8.6 million military war dead is a classic example of Soviet disinformation. Berndd--68.236.161.237 13:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC) As for the MIA figure 500,000, this is the estimateby the USSR MOD as cited in Kirocheev of combat dead not counted. The Germans recruited about 1 million Soviets as "Helpers" they kept a seperate roster of casualties for them that listed 215,000 total deaths according to Kirosheev. The true number of MIA due to combat can only be estimated.berndd

Kirosheev

Total losses per Kirossheev are 9,186,000. That guy never even looked at duh book Berndd

I got the information from a website with Krivosheev's book in it. Official Soviet statistics, as quoted by General Krivosheev, list 8,600,000 military dead. Partisans were not military - they were paramilitary. They are counted separately. Here is my source. Maybe we are talking about different people? Cossack 20:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC) BOOOOOOOOOO! BO Who to You- Go to page 85 of Krivosheev's book- 8,668,400 plus 500,000 equals 9,168,400.--Woogie10w 15:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The Soviets recorded 6.885 K confirmed war dead(Killed in Acion & Died of Wounds,disease or accidents). This does not include MIA(dead in battle and not recored), POW deaths, Partisan and Milita deaths. The Germans captured 5,735,000 POWs according to Clodfelter and Kirosheev reports 2,776,000 as being liberated, what happened to the other 2,959,000 ? And what were the number of MIA and combat deaths of partisans and Milita(the men defending Moscow in Nov 1941)? Today there is a card file in the former Soviet MOD that has recorded 13.6 million military WW2 era deaths. No doubt many were reservists in German occupied territory who died as "civilians" or at the hands of the NKVD after the war. Look at it this way; the Soviets lost 20.1 million males and 6.5 million females. Civilian deaths should have been 50-50 if only German bombs and execution squads were the cause of the losses.
Soviet casualties and the entire planet from 1900 to 2003 are covered in - Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5931651071. Its a great book which you can order from eastview.com Berndd--63.42.44.16 02:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Some problems with Soviet and Russian casualty statistics

1-Partisan & Militia deaths of 400,000 are included with civilian deaths.
2 –POW losses of 1.6 million are included with civilian dead.
3- Losses of 2.3 million in western Byelorussia & Ukraine are included with Poland by western historians. The Russians include these losses with the USSR. To avoid duplication these losses need to backed out of Soviet or Polish losses.
4- To arrive at the total loss of 26.6 million the Russians assume only 450,000 persons emigrating after WW2. The actual emigration was about 1 million which means losses were overstated by about 600,000.
5-The Soviet population recorded in the 1939 census was 168.5 million not 170.5 million. Stalin ordered the number to be falsified.
6- Soviet civilian losses of about 3 million persons due to famine in the territory not occupied by the Germans are included in the total losses of 26.6 million. .
7-The Germans had 1 million Soviet deserters in their Army. 215,000 were killed in action. They need to be included with German losses
8- In addition to the war losses of 26.6 million the Russians and the PC crowd in the west tend to ignore the1.7 million Soviet citizens that died due to communist terror ( I realize that this is not NPOV but it is a fact that can’t be ignored)
9-Rule of thumb should be to check and analyze Soviet & Russian claims of losses. They throw a figure at you and expect it to be accepted as “ official” “ how dare you question official government data" BERNDD--68.236.161.237 14:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
10-The losses of USSR before 22 June 1941, must be counted on the Axis side, because at that time USSR and Germany were allied. Otherwise how should we count the Polish casualties against Russian forces in 1939 - being from "friendly fire"?--85.130.127.137 00:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

USSR - allied with Germany? Did USSR declare war on German enemies (UK, France)? C'mon, get real, the Soviet Union wasn't Germany's ally, it was a passive collaborationist (пособник, there's got to be a single english word for it, my vocabulary is just not rich enough), much like UK was a passive collaborationist with Germany prior to outbreak of WW2 (see Munich Pact). With respect, Ko Soi.

it was essentially friendship, they were allies for a while, sharing military training and technology. fact that came back to bite hitler since he sent some of his heavy metal tools to russia, so the germans had to make tanks with flat instead of rounded armor turrents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aihyah (talk • contribs) 23:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Soviet War Losses 1941-45

A Russian language source was published in 2004 entitled " Poteri Narodonaselenia v 20 veke" by Vadim Erlikman. The book is a reference guide to population losses in every country on the planet from 1900 to 2003. The author adds copious footnotes which lists the sources of the data, often he uses Soviet and Russian sources that are not well known in the west.

Here is his breakdown of Soviet Losses from 1941-1945

Killed in action or died of wounds - 7.6 Million (including 215,000 in German forces)

POW's who died in captivity- 2.6 Million

Partisans killed in battle- 250,000

Citizen militia killed in battle- 150,000

Civilians killed in fighting- 1.5 Million

Civilians executed/killed by Germans- 7.1 Million

Working as an UN-pathologist, I can say, killing 7,1 million people in mass executions in a time period of less than 4 years requires very high logistical foundations, impossible to achive given the infrastructur of occupied soviet territory in the 40s, no extermination camps, no use of gas. Pls clarify this source.--84.147.225.118 19:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The source of the statistic is Vserossiyskaya Kniga Pamyata 1941-45 page 406 cited by Vadim

Erlikman. The details are as follows 3 million dead in ghettos or forced labour camps and 4 million killed in German reprisals. The Germans occupied Soviet territory with 70 million inhabitants, considering the fact that vast areas were destroyed by the Nazi's the deaths of 7 million civilians, 10% of the population in 3 years, seems plausible indeed using the types and quantities of weapons at their disposal.
In Rwanda in only 3 months 1 million people( 13%of the population) were killed out of a population of 7.8 million, by militias armed with machetes and small arms. Based on your experience working at the UN as a pathologist do you consider this credible?
One must also consider that total Soviet losses were 26.6 million( in 1941 borders), military losses were 10-11 million leaving 15-16 million civilian deaths to be explained.
--Woogie10w 23:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

1) 4 million due to mass executions is possible though the author of list of massacres never heard of such executions, even Babi Yar massacre was not focussed at soviet civilian population. Have you got other information? 2) "3 million dead in ghettos" a) In which soviet cities did they installed ghettos? b) To separate soviet civilians from whom? 3) "or in forced labour camps" a) So in Germany died 1,2 Soviets in forced labour camps and in occupied Soviet territory 3 million minus Soviet Ghetto deaths. Is that correct? Thank you.--88.64.224.240 00:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Deaths in the USSR from 1941-45 (including annexed territories) exceeded the prewar level by 26.6 million. Erlikman quotes a Russian source from 1995, Vserossiyskaya Kniga Pamyata 1941-45 page 406, that gives a breakdown of the losses. The Germans occupied a territory with a opulation of 70 million. According to Russian data 15.9 million civilians perished during the 3 year occupation. Vast areas were devestated and the population was enslaved, starved and massacred. Ghettos for Jews were created in Minsk and Vilnus. Erlikman reported the source as estimating 3 million dead in ghettos or forced labour camps and 4 million killed in German reprisals plus an additional 7 million due to starvation or military actions. An additional 1.8 million Soviet citizens died in Germany as forced laborers. Those are the figures Erlikman quotes from Vserossiyskaya Kniga Pamyata 1941-45.--Woogie10w 00:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If you still a doubting Thomas I advive you to consult Andreev, EM, et al, Naselenie Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1922-1991. Moscow, Nauka, 1993. ISBN 5-02-013479-1. This report prepared by the Russian Academy of Science details the demographic losses of the USSR from 1941-45. The USSR lost 14 million adult males and 12.5 million women and children. This is a fact that can't be denied. --Woogie10w 01:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody wants to deny anything. I just want a breakdown of the 4 million "German reprisals". You said: = slavery, starvation and massacres. But slavery? No, because then Erlikman would have included this number in´the forced labour figure. So it has to be starvation and/or massacres. So the question is: How many of those 4 mill soviet civilians died in no-combat-starvation and how many died in massacres. And if the died-in-massacre-number is larger then 1 million I just wonder why nobody ever heard of such massacres. You cannot shot 1000000 people without leaving any traces.--88.64.232.127 21:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"I just wonder why nobody ever heard of such massacres", "without leaving any traces" Wake up! the entire Ukraine and Byelorussia were devestated. 12.5 million women and childern were dead. The crimes of the Nazis in the USSR cannot be denied.--Woogie10w 01:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Quoting me that way I believe you've got other information. Now pls point me to the massacre of Murmansk, the slaughter of Leningrad or the bloodbath of Minsk. What I believe is that nearly all of those 4 million civilians died from starvation or frost after German forces destroyed their houses in non-combat-operations.--88.64.227.200 19:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You bet pal, the other information I have is the evidence presented at the Nurnburg trials. The massacres of the Nazi SS Einsatzgruppen were well documented using their own documemts. These crimminals accounted for many of the 12.5 million Soviet women and children killed in the war. The Nazi propaganda bragged in 1943 that the food produced in the Ukraine was being shipped to Germany, while the Ukrainians starved. 9 million Soviet Citizens were transported to Germany as Slave laborers, 1.8 million perished. The crimes of the Nazis were very well documented at Nurnburg.

Civilian dead in Nazi concentration camps- 600.000

Civilian dead in forced labor in Germany- 1.2 Million

Civilian dead of hunger or disease- 5.5 Million

Civilians executed/killed by Soviets- 200,000

Civilian dead in concentration camps(GULAG)-1.2 million

Civilian dead due to Soviet deportation -300,000

GRAND TOTAL - 28.2 Million

--Berndd11222 03:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

How reliable are his figures? Encyclopedia Britannica states that reliable figures for Soviet casualties are not availible. Do you feel this is no longer true? Drogo Underburrow 09:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Encyclopedia Britannica( 1998 Ed) Lists 11 million military and 7 million civilian war losses
Encyclopedia Britannica - footnote on Soviet losses Available estimates of Soviet casualties vary widely. A Soviet officer who served with the high command in Berlin and left the Soviet service in 1949 placed total military losses at 13,600,000--8,500,000 dead or missing in battle; 2,600,000 dead in prison camps; 2,500,000 died of wounds--and estimated civilian casualties at 7,000,000. These figures have been widely accepted in Germany, but most U.S. compilations, based on Soviet announcements, list 6,000,000 to 7,500,000 battle deaths. Calculations made on the basis of population distribution by age and sex in the 1959 U.S.S.R. census give some credence to the higher figures, for they seem to indicate losses of from 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 males of military age in World War II. The figures used here are a compromise estimate, not intended to obscure the fact that Soviet casualties are, in reality, unknown in the West

---

Today we have reliable data on the demographic impact of the war on the USSR. These losses are for the entire territory of the USSR including annexed territories and the territory not occupied by Germnany. The demographic evidence indicates that 26.6 million Soviet citizens died from 1941-45 in excess of the pre-war level. It does not tell us the circumstances of their deaths.

                  USSR Population 1939-46

Description	Amount
Population 1/1/39	168,525,000
Natural Increase 1939-1946	10,350,000
War Losses	(26,600,000)
Net Population Transfers	19,650,000
Population 12/31/46	172,105,000

Source:Andreev, EM, et al. NASELENIE SOVETSKOGO SOIUZA, 1922-1991. Moscow, Nauka, 1993.
This schedule summarizes the balance of the Soviet population from 1939-1946. The beginning population is based on the revised census data for 1939. The Natural increase is based on live births and an assumed death rate at pre-war levels. The war losses are those losses in excess of the pre-war death rate including an increase in infant mortality of 1.3 million. The Population of the annexed territories is net of all transfers up until 12/31/46. The ending population of 1946 is an estimate. The first post war Soviet census was taken in 1959.---Woogie10w 11:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

---

SOVIET MILITARY LOSSES The official Russian number of military of 8,668,400 is broken down as follows 1- Killed in Action and died of wounds 6,329,600; 2-Died of disease, accident or sentenced to be shot 555,500; 3- 1,783,300 MIA and POW dead. Total POWs and MIA were 4,559,000 of whom 2,775,700 were liberated leaving 1,783,300 unaccounted for. This is on page 85 of Soviet Casualties & Combat losses by Gen. Krivosheev. This 8,668,400 is "from listed strength" which is doubletalk to cover up the high losses of POWs and MIA. The fact of the matter is that many reservists were called up but never put on "listed strength" by Moscow. Clodfelter(see references in article) reports the Germans taking 5,735,000 Soviet POWs, 1.2 million more than the official Soviet total of POWs and missing combined. From a military operational point of view the loss of reservists not taken on active strength must be taken into account. The German data on POWS gives us a tool to bridge the gap between official Soviet data and actual military losses--Woogie10w 11:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not challenging what you are saying, I'm simply trying to understand it. Please forgive me if I am being a bit slow here. You report that the ending estimate of Soviet population for 1946 is an estimate. Can we therefore conclude that the figure for the total Soviet civilian casualties (26.6 million) is only a rough guess? Drogo Underburrow 11:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You are quite correct, Soviet losses are what one would call a "rough guess" There is no list with 26.6 names of the dead. This statistic tells us that 26.6 million Soviet citizens died in the war, it includes deaths of famine of about 3 million in the interior of the USSR not occupied by the Germans and another 3 million deaths in the territories annexed by the USSR in 193-40. These 3 million deaths are included with the losses of Poland, the Baltic states and Romania by most western historians, you need to back them out of the Soviet number in order to avoid a doublecount. So in fact the USSR lost about 20 million due to the war. The military losses were about 10-11 million when one adds the additional POW losses I mentioned above and losses of partisans and militia. The balance of 9-10 million are civilian losses. These losses are poorly documented and may include victims of Soviet as well as Nazi repression.--Woogie10w 12:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to clarify and report on this confusing issue. I will go ahead and put on the WWII page the results of your research: Soviet military losses for WWII were approximately 10-11 million, civilian losses 9-10 million, and both these figures are rough guesses, that are poorly documented, and may include deaths due to Soviet as well as Nazi oppression. This is all correct, yes? Drogo Underburrow 12:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The current posting and the footnotes on the page reflects the data that I have mentioned. there is no need to change the posted numbers. The source of this data is Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5931651071. All postings must be from verifiable sources.--Woogie10w 12:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC) The math is simple. The Soviets lost 26.6 million in the war, 3.3 million of these deaths are already posted with Poland, the Baltic States and Romania. Included in this total are about 200,000 Soviets in the German military losses. The net loss is 23.1 million--Woogie10w 13:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC) The fact that western and Polish historians include losses in the territories ceded to the USSR by Poland in 1945 with Polish losses creates an problem of allocating the losses. The Soviets claim them as Soviet citizens during the war, however the Polish consider them Polish until the end of the war. If we bump up the Soviet number to 26.6 million we must reduce Polish losses to 3.3 million, delete the Baltic states and reduce the Romanian losses by 300,000 to account for losses in the annexed territories. The bottom line, the grand total remains the same. The fact that western historians have always included in Poland's losses the aannexed territories was the reason why they are backed out of the Soviet totals. I hope this helps--Woogie10w 13:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

When I said the WWII page, I meant the main WWII page, not the page that this is the talk page to. I will use your numbers. The numbers may already be there. Important also is that the figures are rough guesses, that are poorly documented, and may include deaths due to Soviet as well as Nazi oppression, which is all what you said earlier, yes? Drogo Underburrow 13:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Tak, Yes, Da, Ja, Si, Oui ect. In my opinion the issue needs a clear explanation, the footnotes on the Casualties page should be adequate, feel free to copy and paste( hey its Wikipedia) Folks should say " this makes sense, the guy knows what he is talking about "--Woogie10w 17:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The guy from the Briticanna may have used this logic to derive his figures. Military losses- Actual deaths of 6.9 million plus 700,000 estimated MIA; plus 400,000 partisans; plus 5.7 million POWs less 2.7 million POW freed in 1945 - Net loss 11 million. That makes sense. Erlikman is close to that at 10.6 million. Civilian losses of 7 million are more than likly only direct losses such as executions ect. Famine deaths of 5 million are excluded, Erlikman includes famine losses. At least 700,000 died in Lenningrad of starvation, I think they should be counted as war dead along with the millions of Soviet children who starved in the interior--Woogie10w 16:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

A special Soviet casualties article?

I think we have enough material here to make up for a very interesting article on its own. I mean, we have already seperate articles on such things as Humanitarian effects of Hurricane Katrina, and surely the 23 million Soviet dead is an issue that could be well served with an article on its own where we explain the death toll numbers as Berndd has done here, add some prose, mention all this with unlisted and sometimes unaccounted for soldiers, POW's, the risk of double counting, and so on. I think many people can learn from reading it. I know I would. And we could also point people to that article for a more thorow explanation for those curious about why our numbers might differ from whatever number they have read. I could actually write it myself by just copy and paste stuff from this talk page... Maybe I'll do that if nobody beats me to it. But what should we call the aricle? Soviet casualties in World War II is maybe simple and good? Shanes 13:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like an excellent suggestion, especially if Shanes is willing to get it started. The topic definately deserves its own page. The proposed name sounds great. Drogo Underburrow 16:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The number for Ukraine is more like 8,000,000. This is a glaring error. Please do your research and do not lump it is with Poland at a paltry 2.3 million. Just recently a mass grave of 400,000 was discovered, so please update this.
The World War Two losses of each nation are listed within 1939 borders . The losses of the Ukraine are included with the USSR and Poland because the country was not an independent nation in 1939. Vadim Erlikman a Russian historian lists Ukrainian losses at 6.850 million. The western Ukraine occupied by Poland had a population of 7.8 million which is 18.9% of the`total Ukrainian population of 41.3 million in 1940. Ukrainian losses in the Polish occupied territories were then roughly 1.3 million and 5.5 million in the USSR --Woogie10w 11:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Polish occupied" territories?! Szopen 11:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The Polish Roman Catholics were a minority over there in 1939, they occupied the area by force of arms in 1919 against the wishes of the Paris peace confrence.--Woogie10w 11:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Partisan Losses

Partisan losses are included with duh military casualties. Oh my God! we need to reclassify them as civilians.Lets start with Norway, those guys who blew up the heavy water plants were not combatants. The French Marquis who worked with MI5 on D day were not combatants. The Italian partisans who fought behind the lines in 1944-45 were not combatants. Tito’s Red Army and the Chetniks were civilians not combatants. The Greek and Bulgarian communist partisans were not combatants they were civilians. The Slovak partisans of 1944 that assisted the Red Army were not combatants. Chiang’s guerillas were civilians not combatants. Mao’s Red Army were not combatants they were civilians. The AK home Army losses in the 1944 uprising were civilians not combatants. The Soviet_ Partisan fighters were civilians not military combatants. Its a fact these folks did not raise their right hand and swear and oath to the motherland and did not die wearing a uniform. Put them in the same column as mom, grandpa and the kids.Bernnd--68.236.161.237 16:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

A great percentage from Russian Partisan forces were military - both from encircled forces and from military units dropped behind enemy lines. Of course there were civilians too --85.130.127.137 00:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Non Combat Casualties--Should they be posted with war casualties?

The numbers posted include non combat losses due to disease and accidents. For example the US has 113,000, Italy 50,000, Germany 500,000 and the USSR 556,000. Should they be posted with war casualties?Berndd--68.236.161.237 18:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Merchant Mariners

On this page Merchant mariners are included for Canada in military and for the US in civlian, I think we should at least keep it consistent. Also for the US, with different sources for civilian and military, could they be included in both? I havent looked through other countries, but those being the only two I looked at and they were different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.47.112 (talk • contribs)

could they be included in both? Yea, what duh heck! even if duh number is duplicted it does

not matter we are are on Wikipedia.Berndd

Berndd, I wish you would just make edits as you see fit to improve this page.

On another, but related note, I think we should explain better in the article all these subtle differences with what is considered military and civilian losses, why that is, and also, preferably, comment on the various numbers given in the literature and who includes what as military, as MIA, as killed by who, and so on. Right now we basically have just numbers in a table with footnotes trying to explain some of it, but the footnote section is getting crowded and I think there are lots of interesting information regarding this topic that deserves a more thorow treatment. We could have separate sections for each of the major powers, eg "Soviet casualties", where we could state and elaborate on all these things (with references, of course). What do you think, Berndd? Shanes 11:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I refuse to spend the time to fix this page and have a bunch of morons change the numbers.Berndd

A perfect example is when the official Soviet losses of 8.7 million is posted without any mention that it includes only 1.8 million missing and POW deaths ignoring the Wikipedia page on the Eastern Front lists 4.0 million Soviet POW dead. It is obvious that no effort was made to analyze this statistic and post its details. Berndd

SOVIET LOSSES-IS THE OFFICIAL TOTAL OF 8.6 MILLION, ACCURATE ?

That nummber on the eastern front was made by me and I have told you where I got the nummbers from.

Now could you tell me what sources you get your nummbers from and also there is a gap in the POW and people that got liberated what happened to the people that didnt get liberated according to your nummbers? (Deng 00:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

The official Russian Nr of 8,668,400 is broken down as follows 1- Killed in Action and died of wounds 6,329,600; 2-Died of disease, accident or sentenced to be shot 555,500; 3- 1,783,300 MIA and POW dead. Total POWs and MIA were 4,559,000 of whom 2,775,700 were liberated leaving 1,783,300 unaccounted for. This is on page 85 of Soviet Casualties & Combat losses by Gen. Krivosheev. This 8,668,400 is "from listed strength" which is Soviet doubletalk to cover up the high losses of POWs and MIA. The fact of the matter is that many reservists were called up but never put on "listed strength" by Moscow. Clodfelter(see references in article) reports the Germans taking 5,735,000 Soviet POWs, 1.2 million more than the official Soviet total of POWs and missing combined. A recent Russian language source published in 2004 " Human losses in the 20th Century" by Vadim Erlikman estimates 7.6 million Killed and missing in action, 2.6 million dead POWs, 250,000 partisan deaths and 150,000 militia dead for a grand total of 10.6 million. The key point that must be understood is that many Soviet reservists were captured by the Germans but never on the official roster in Moscow because of the chaos in 1941. The Soviets lost at least 3.3 million POWS and MIA not 1.8 million as reported in the "official" total. This is why the Soviet military lost 10.6 million in the war not 8.6 million. Check and doublecheck any and all data from Soviet sources.Berndd--4.236.63.210 02:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes yes the nummbers are all probably correct BUT you combine missing and dead so how do we know how many were dead and not missing and dead. ALSO a missing person could be someone who joined the axis and was killed during or after the war also the unaccounted for could also be someone who joined the axis and died during or after the war or maybe even surrvived and escaped to some other country. So how do we know that the missing and unaccounted for are not the people who joined the axis. (Deng 04:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

A recent Russian language source published in 2004 " Human losses in the 20th Century" by Vadim Erlikman estimates 7.6 million Killed and missing in action, 2.6 million dead POWs in German custody(out of a total 5.2 million POWs), 250,000 partisan deaths and 150,000 militia dead for a grand total of 10.6 million. About 1,000,000 POWs were in German military service and according to Gen Krivosheev 215,000 were killed or MIA in German military service. About 800,000 were returned to the USSR after the war, many later died in the Gulags and their deaths are not included with the 10.6 million war dead. As for the seperation of POW and MIA deaths one can only estimate. Erlikman gives 7.6 million killed & MIA. If you subtract Kirivosheev's 6,9 million confirmed dead you arrive at 700,000 MIA. That seems reasonable to me. Berndd--4.236.60.34 10:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)--Woogie10w 12:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The number of 10.6 million of Erlikman should be tweeked down to 10.4 million bebause 215,000 were killed or MIA in German military service. Berndd AKA --Woogie10w 13:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The 1 million which I believe is 2, but that dosent matter, shoud NOT add to Soviet losses but to the AXIS one.(Deng 21:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

You believe 2 million Soviets dead in German Army, where does that come from? This gets better as we move along, I need a few laughs after a tough week in the office--Woogie10w 04:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

LET ME REPEAT--About 1,000,000 Soviet POWs were in German military service and according to Gen Krivosheev 215,000 were killed or MIA in German military service. About 800,000 were returned to the USSR after the war, many later died in the Gulags and their deaths are not included with the 10.6 million war dead. The number of 10.6 million of Erlikman should be tweeked down to 10.4 million because 215,000 were killed or MIA in German military service.--Woogie10w 03:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The Philippines & Barbarossa -1941

For Americans the Philippine campaign of 1941-42 was a great humiliation. The Japanese suprised McArthur and conquered the Philippines in six months capturing more than 30,000 US military personnel and civilians. General McArthur had to sneek out in a US submarine. Many Philippinos collaborated with Japan. It was a disaster we don't want to remember.
The Russians look back at the disaster of 1941 and feel the same way. There is no desire to list the 3.3 million POWs captured in 1941 and the loss of the vital heartland of the USSR in five months. The fact that 1 million Soviet soldiers were in the German Army is hardly ever mentioned along with the Stalinist era repressions.
Berndd AKA--Woogie10w 14:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Not many Filipinos collaborated with Japan, as Japan genrally treated them as harshly as the Spaniards did. Case in point: Bataan Death March.

ITALIAN CASUALTIES

I have a copy of the official Italian Report, if there are any questions please feel free to ask. Berndd AKA--Woogie10w 19:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I added some time ago to the eastern front page the nummbers of italians that died on the eastern front the source is this Campaigns of World War II : Day by Day" which is written by Chris Bishop and Chris Mcnab, pages 244-252 and the nummbers are these 84,830 DEAD

I listed only military losses in Russia, I suspect that the higher Nr includes civilians. I will doublecheck the data when I get home tonight--Woogie10w 16:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

(Deng 11:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

Holocaust Deaths

I don't think this should appear in the chart unless mention of the total number of people killed in the concentration and work camps is mentioned (not just the Jewish deaths). It makes it seem like Jewish people were the only ones persecuted this way. There were over 11 million people killed in those camps, of which 6 million were Jewish. Meaning the deaths of around 5 million executed people have been, and have traditionally been, totally ignored. I am not making light of this. I would have qualified to have been a 'guest' of those camps if I were living in Nazi Germany (due to my father being of Jewish heritage). I am just a bit frustrated by the one sided view. I know this view should be expected I guess, as the largest single block to be persecuted is likely to have the loudest voice. Let's just not ignore the ones who can't shout so loudly.

The Jews were singled out for extermination and 70% in German occupied territory perished. For example the Holocaust is also a seperate item on the German Wikipedia page on war casualties. Christian civilians could survive by working for the Germans while most Jews were not given this option. The fate of the Jews deserves special mention also because the Holocaust deniers are attempting to cover up the Nazi crime of mass murder.The Jewish losses in the Holocaust must remain as a seperate item.
This page covers the loss of civlians that are ignored by most historians, Indonesia is a perfect example. Read the footnotes for each country and you will find the details of sources that can elaborate on these losses. Poland for example has a link to the USHMM page Poles as Victims of the Nazi era. The German civilian losses are detailed here while they are ignored by most people outside of Germany. The fate of the Roma is mentioned in each country. The high rate of civilian deaths in Japan in 1945 is mentioned here but ignored elsewhere. Non Jewish civilian and POW losses are detailed for each country.--Woogie10w 21:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

To quote: "Christian civilians could survive by working for the Germans while most Jews were not given this option." -- 5 million Christians (and other faiths) did not have this option either. The Nazis were intent on killing off more than those of Jewish heritage (and yes, they were intent on that). [This web page (http://www.remember.org/forgotten/)] is a good start to show that others are concerned about people inadvertantly denying that the holocaust killed more than Jewish people through deliberate omission (by highligting one group, you make it seem like no-one else matters... or even exists). From that web site: "Heinrich Himmler echoed Hitler's decree: "All Poles will disappear from the world.... It is essential that the great German people should consider it as its major task to destroy all Poles." Yes, the Jews suffered the worst losses in terms of the relative number of their people killed. But others were on the list too. History needs to document when tyrants try to practice "ethnic cleansing", no matter who they are, no matter who the victims are, and no matter the percentages. In this respect, quoting percentages, and basing who you say we should feel the worse for using said percentages... it is wrong (and I believe morally wrong). If 1% of a group is killed in ethnic cleansing, or 70%, it deserves equal treatment in terms of documentation. All incidents of this type deserve equal exposure. The numbers will speak for themselves. You are not to judge, just to report. If you are going to highlight something by placing it in a table (and that Hitler was working on ethnic cleansing sure deserves hightlighting), make sure you include all who were affected, not just those who you think deserve regonition. Theshowmecanuck 03:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

On a personal note: Placing one group above another is not right no matter what the circumstance. It smacks of political correctness, which is not a fit doctrine in historical documentation. In fact, I think it is akin to being a holocaust denyer in light of the fact that through omission, you are hiding some of the atrocities (5 million deaths). You will find I am very strongly aligned against political correctness. The truth deserves more. 11 million people died in the camps. Not 6 million. Theshowmecanuck 03:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There were 350 million non Jews in German occupied Europe of whom 15 million were victims of the Nazis a 4% death rate. These losses are noted for each country in the footnotes. Of the 8 million Jews in Hitler's Europe 5.7 million perished, a 70% death rate.--Woogie10w 10:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

On a personal note. My father was shocked when he heard a group of German POWs in France speaking Polish. --Woogie10w 10:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, just because the Jews were the largest group of Holocaust victims does not mean they deserve special treatment over everyone else who was slaughtered in the death camps. Listing only the Jewish victims is not only historically inaccurate, it's offensive. It makes out the Gypsies, Poles, and all other non-Jewish "undesirables" as being less important than the Jewish victims, and also to an extent downplays just how bad the Holocaust really was. 71.203.209.0 05:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

FROM THE NOTES AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCHEDULE

Civilian Deaths - Includes civilian losses from military action and war related deaths caused by famine and disease. These figures include civilian deaths due to Nazi terror and the Holocaust totaling 17.8 million¹⁷ and various Japanese atrocities 5.4 million ⁴⁵The deaths related the Soviet annexations in 1939-40 are included with civilian dead. Civilian losses in the postwar era ( 1946-47) due to famine and disease are not included with these losses.
--Woogie10w 21:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I find that sentence misleading. The way I understand it, it means that the Jewish Holocaust victims are counted twice - once as Civilian deaths, once as Jewish Holocaust deaths. That isn't the case, but I don't know what the correct description would be, so it's probably better if it's edited by someone who knos what they are doing. Pruneau 17:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The numbers add across the page to the total. The Holocaust deaths are not double counted.--Woogie10w 18:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

German Submarine Losses

Is there a source on the number of german submarine losses. thne current number seems way too high Check[1]--Woogie10w 23:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

this source says " Total U-boats lost 751"

which is smallerthen the number in the article? any objection to me changing??No problem, just cite a verifable source--Woogie10w 01:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been looking in internet for that info too. You will see that in wikipedia are many colaborators that are traumatised with world war 2 casusties, and change the info to his/her will with esporadical anger.

In uboat.net the casuslties listed seems right i have checheck them with a book of WORLD WAR 2 of Anessa-Rizzoli edition ( both english and spanish). Remember that the power of the Kriegmarine was on his uboats and the submarine warfare (beacuse it was the only weapon thay could develop largy by the Versalles treaty).

Yugoslavia

Not having Yugoslavia in the "Allied Military Deaths" pie chart is an inexcusible ommission. Of all countries that fought fascism, Yugoslavia should be the last to froget, true heros.

I agree that Yugoslavia should be mentioned in the chart, having more military deaths than many other countries listed, and have left a note about it to the creator of the chart, User:Dna-webmaster. Shanes 13:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't blame me. I did not do the pie charts, speak to Denis, he set them up---Woogie10w 14:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys. I have updated the three piecharts according to the figures in the article as of 9th May 2006. Now, Yugoslavia is represented as a piece of the pie. Don't forget to clear browser cache and hit refresh... Regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 00:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys. As a Croat and trying to be objective, I think the number of 2nd world war victims in Yugoslavia is slightly exaggerated. Communist government put war reparations request to Germany, originally at 1.7 million of victims. This is the number long being thought at school. Of victims, some actually took part on the side of Axis. Nevertheless, the number of victims on the side of allied forces (Yugoslav partisans of all nations constituting Yugoslavia) is the biggest, and is probably between 100-300 000 (it cannot be bigger, regarding the size of the partisan army during the war). Please investigate. Total number of human losses is probably somewhat below 1 million, but definitely more then 500 000 (roughly proportionally spread across Yugoslav constituting nations.) Please investigate. Even if I am correct the number of victims is tragic, and contribution to antifascist struggle significant.

Note on Croatia: Croatian losses on the side of allies are probably between 50-100 000. Losses on the side of Axis are smaller, but probably at the same order of magnitude, maybe 10-50 000. Losses of Jewish community in Croatia are between 10-20 000 (community was at least halved). Civilian losses in Croatia are up to 150 000 (about 70 000 Serbs killed in concentration camp.) [Kreso Bilan] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.95.122 (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Take a peek at the footnote on Yugoslavia. The source of the data is the Croatian Information Center--Woogie10w 02:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth War Graves Conmmission

How to check the Casualty totals for the Commonwealth that tie out to the WW2 Casualties page.
Go to CWGC webpage-Search our Records-Debt of Honour Register
To check Total losses for the Indian Army in WW2
1-Search for- CASUALTY
2-War- SECOND WORLD WAR
3-Year of Death- From: 1939 - To: 1947
4-Force-ARMY
5-Nationality- INDIAN

The search yields 79,326 Indian Army deaths in WW2.

--Woogie10w 16:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Article rating, do we want it improved, and if so, how?

This article is quite special since it's in the borderline between a Wikipedia List and an article. To begin with it was a list, and the article name was List of World War II casualties by country. Then it was moved to the current title in February 2004, and has from then on been considered an article. But whether we should stribe to comply with the guidelines on Wikipedia:How to write a great article is a debatable question in this case. It can be argued that the information this article first and foremost should offer is a listing of casualties (with sources) in WW2 and avoid distracting from that with much prose and blah-blah. For instance, the article is already 55 kilobytes long, which is way over the recomended size limit. If we add more prose, do we delete or split out anything already in there? And if so, what?

If we want to persue a higher article rating by having more prose, I believe the best way would be, as Kirill sugests, to take some of the information in the footnotes and put it in seperate article sections instead. It could definitely be worth having a go at. Worst come, if we later find out that, no, it was better as it was, we can just revert back to todays version, and simply say "screw article rating", we don't need no stinkin' prose. We just want the information there in a list with footnotes, easy to find and look up. Shanes 13:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

A few points I suppose I should make:

• There's a lot of text in the footnotes, and much of it is interesting enough to be moved into the article itself; I doubt that doing so would significantly increase the size.
• Conversely, if you want to have this be a list, that's fine too; I would suggest renaming it to "List of ...", in that case.
• Finally, and perhaps most importantly: I am not the sole arbiter of article ratings. I gave the article the rating I felt was most appropriate; but I'll admit that I did not do any exhaustive soul-searching about the nature of the article. If you feel that I've not rated it highly enough, you're welcome to ask someone else (preferably a WP:MILHIST member) to take a look at it, and they can change the rating if they disagree with my assessment. (As a side note to that: these ratings are primarily for the use of the Military history WikiProject; they don't represent any sort of "official" valuation of the article.)

I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone here by rating the article. Kirill Lokshin 13:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

A lean article without detailed footnotes and sources is worthless. Just look at the version of October 22, 2005. The numbers on the page did not foot, the reader was not provided with details on the nature of the casualties and the sources were not mentioned. Today this article gives the reader an accurate and concise presentation of World War Two Casualties. It is at the top of the list if you do a Google or Yahoo inquiry on the subject. I welcome any changes that will update and correct the data presented here--Woogie10w 16:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Equipment Losses Tables

These tables should be considered canidates for transfer to a page that deals with military hardware. They are not related to the topic of war casualties and take up space.--Woogie10w 09:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. If nobody objects, I'll move it out to its own article. Shanes 11:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Alles klar--Woogie10w 11:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. The equipment losses are now in the article Equipment losses in World War II. Shanes 14:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Pie Charts

These charts could be replaced a photograph of Casualties in WW2. The information they present is of limited value. I think a war photgraph would be a better suited to this page and would help to trim down it's size.--Woogie10w 10:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Also they are misleading because they include victims of the Nazis as Axis civilians. Hungarian Jews sent to Auschwitz are in the same section as German air raid casualties.--Woogie10w 10:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think an article like this should have some charts to illustrate the numbers in the table. But they are a bit too big in my oppinion. I'll make them smaller. Is it the first chart you find misleading? Maybe we could plot the holocoust victims seperately in that chart. But then we need to bug Dennis to make a new chart (again). Unless someone else knows how to make those charts. I don't. Shanes 11:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Indian deaths in WW-II

The number of deaths from India, as mentioned in this article (1.5 million) is highly exaggerated.I am sure it is not more than 100,000.Does anybody know the exact number?

The Bengal famine of 1943 was war related and caused an estimated 1.5 million deaths, the source of this statistic isJohn W. Dower War Without Mercy 1986 ISBN 394751728- Page 297

From the Footnote backing up Indian losses

The war dead listed here are those reported by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Total deaths were 87,040 which included Army (79,326), Air Force (897), Navy (501), Merchant Navy (6,114), unidentified by branch of service(9), and civilian deaths(193). These losses include war related deaths during 1946-47 (8,522)The preliminary 1945 data for Indian losses was, killed 24,338, missing 11,754, wounded 64,354 and POW 79,489.The pro-Japanese Indian National Army lost 2,615 dead and missing.
Civilian losses were caused by the Bengal famine of 1943.--Woogie10w 01:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

How to check the Casualty totals for the Commonwealth that tie out to the WW2 Casualties page.
Go to CWGC webpage-Search our Records-Debt of Honour Register
To check Total losses for the Indian Army in WW2
1-Search for- CASUALTY
2-War- SECOND WORLD WAR
3-Year of Death- From: 1939 - To: 1947
4-Force-ARMY
5-Nationality- INDIAN

The search yields 79,326 Indian Army deaths in WW2.
--Woogie10w 01:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

1947 ? :/ Matt714 19:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The war dead reported by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission include deaths in 1946-47 due to war related wounds. In the case of India these losses were 8,522.--Woogie10w 21:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The Holcaust in Albania

The history of the Holocaust by A. Edelheit Westview 1994 ISBN 01813314119 decribes the fate of the Albanian Jews after the German occupation. " Their fate changed only after the Italinans surrendered and the Wehermacht occupied Albania. At that point the Nazis began a roundup that resulted in the arrest of virtually all the Albanian Jews, all the Central European Jewish refugees, and about 100 Croat Jews who had fled Yugoslavia in 1941. In all, the SS deported 400 jews in a single transport that was sent to Bergen-Belsen. From there, the Albanian Jews were shipped to labor camps or to Auschwitz; only 100 returned after the war"

Pacific Islands

Any chance that this category be elaborated? Does it include Hawaii or New Britain? While the number may be quite small, it is important to remember that some islands had some of the highest casualty rates. On Nauru over a third of the population died as forced labourers (ref: Nauru). Kransky 15:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ireland and other neutrals

While Ireland was neutral, over 10,000 Irishmen volunteers died serving in the British and other Commonwealth armies. Also there were Irish civilian deaths through accidental bombing. It is totally irrelevant that Ireland was neutral at the time - the intention of this article is to list casualties, and if a significant number of Irishmen died as a result then this fact deserves to be mentioned. And it is insulting to list Irish dead as British dead. I am going to reinclude Ireland. If you wish to debate me on this matter, do it here and lets get a consensus. A decision should also apply for the deaths of people from other 'neutral' countries should also be counted - Switzerland was often bombed (accidentally), and thousands of Swedes fought with the Germans. Kransky 12:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to include the Nigerians, Jamacians, Sudanese, Burmese, Malayans, Jordanians, Kenyans, Ghanaians, Cypriots, Pakistanis, Bangladeshes and Trinidadians in the UK forces, Should they deserve a line too?--Woogie10w 23:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Australian Losses

How to check the Casualty totals for the Commonwealth that tie out to the WW2 Casualties page.
Go to CWGC webpage-Search -Our Records-Debt of Honor Register
To check Total losses for Australia in WW2
1-Search for- CASUALTY
2-War- SECOND WORLD WAR
3-Year of Death- From: 1939 - To: 1947
4-Force-Leave Blank for all losses
5-Nationality- AUSTRAILIAN

The search yields 40,460 Australian deaths in WW2 with each name listed
A similar search of the CWGC for only civilian losses yields 86 names, the Merchant Navy is listed as a separate category not with civilians, this accounts for the difference between the Austrailian War Graves Commission losses of 735 civilians and the CWGC--Woogie10w 23:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources Must be Verifiable

If we post information to Wikipedia the sources must be verifiable. For example when Wikipedia lists 40,500 Australian military deaths WW2 we cite a reference to the CWGC website so that others can verify the information. The reader must be able to say the source for this statistic is the CWGC not Wikipedia. An unsourced statement by an individual is not acceptable because it cannot be verified. --Woogie10w 23:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Military losses must be listed under the flag that they were incurred

Military losses are listed under the flag that they were incurred. For example German nationals who served in the US Armed forces are listed with US not German losses. The UK drafted men from colonies who are listed with the UK since the losses were incurred with the UK armed forces not with each colony. Germany drafted ethnic German citizens of Poland and Czechoslovakia, they are never counted as Czechs or Poles. Koreans and Chinese were drafted by Japan. The Irish who served the UK forces did not fight for Ireland and should be listed with the UK. It would be impossible to break out and re allocate by nationality the losses of each nation. If we have information on foreigners in a nations armed forces it belongs in the footnotes. The losses must be listed under the flag that were incurred in order to avoid a list of numbers that makes no sense and cannot be backed up with solid sources.--Woogie10w 23:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Bombing of Germany

Are the German deaths from bombing just counted in the 1937 German boundaries or does this include people who died in the 1939 boundaries?
Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkreig Bd. 9/1 - On Page 460 clearly states that losses within 1937 borders were 360-370,000 including 185,000 up until 12/31/44. The source of their data is Der Bombenkreig gegen Deutschland by Olaf Groehler--Woogie10w 23:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarian Civilian Casualties

Could the user from the Bulgarian IP address please share with us the source of the information posted yesterday for Bulgarian civilian losses.--Woogie10w 14:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

US Merchant Marines

Shouldn't they be counted as military instead of civilian?
In the US they were not counted with military casualties by the US-DOD, however in the UK and Commomwealth nations the Merchant Navy was considered part of the armed forces by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the UK-MOD, they listed as military casualties.--Woogie10w 02:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Losses

Something doesn't seem right here. According to the site, China had a population of 530 million people in 1939 (Can anyone confirm this with a real source?) and lost about a total of 10 million people, 3 million military and 7 million civilians totaling of 1.89% of their entire population. Japan on the other hand had a total pop. of 72 million and about 2.6 million total deaths, 2 million military and 600,000 civilians making their total population loss of about 3.61%. Something is really wrong here, am I really supposed to believe that Japan lost a bigger chunk of their population than China during WW2? Granted that China had a far larger population than virtually every country in the world at the time, something is still being distorted here. Either the total pop. of China is inflated or the total number of deaths especially for civilians is deflated.

Chinese WW2 losses are diffcult to determine because there was no census of the the population prior to the war. John Dower's estimate of 10 million is posted here, John W. Dower is a well known scholar of the war in Asia and his word has clout, if you have a more credible source than Dower please let us know.
As for the 1939 population two sources are listed, Vadim Erlikman who compiled his data from International Historical Statistics by B.R. Mitchell and the French encyclopedia Fremy D, Fremy M. Quid.; the website Poulation statistics lists the 1939 poulation of 517 million.[2]
The sources cited here are real and can be verified.--Woogie10w 01:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I really hate doubting scholarly work, but according to that source China's population from 1937-1945 (Which was the entire era of the Second Sino-Japanese War) didn't decrease at all but actually increased from 511-537 million. No offense but anyone with common sense would know that is utterly ridiculous/impossible considering that the Japanese were invading and slaughtering both soldiers and civilians in large droves. Even a nation as large and populated in China could not have sustained such huge losses without having a drastic effect on the population. Not to mention that source actually argues a reversal, that being the population of China actually grew. How could a country's population grow in times of war especially one as bloody as the Second-Sino Japanese war? That source provides demographic info but it obviously did not study the war in great detail.

Gen. Joseph Stilwell was critical of the Chinese Nationalist agreement because they refused to take the offensive against the Japanese. The Nationalists pursued the war against the Red Chinese and engaged in brutal oppression of the population under their control, in 1943 the war against Japan was on the back burner in Chunking. When one takes into account the internal Chinese conflicts unrelated to the war total losses are about 19.6 million according to R. J. Rumell. If one applies the population growth rate of 1950( 1%)to the period 1937-45 the total population should have been 560 million at the end of 1945 , the actual population was 541 million, a loss of 19 million from the Sino-Japanese war and internal strife, this ties out closely to Rumell's estimate for the entire period of 19.6 million including internal conflict. We need to exclude losses from internal Chinese conflicts and list only WW2 losses. This is why Dower's estimate of 10 million is correct because it includes the only losses in the war against Japan. In any case the footnotes mention Rumell's estimates for total Chinese losses. His book China's Bloody Century is a great read. --Woogie10w 10:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protect

I've semi-protected it because of persistent vandalism by some dork because the article was just linked to from fark. Just a heads up, the semi-protect can probably be safely removed in the very near future as soon as his attention span expires. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Casualties by region

Would you know a good source about casualties by region? I don't mean casualties suffered by a given country, rather, a casualties a country inflicted on its enemies. I am particularly trying to figure out the number of Axis (99% German, probably) casualties inflicted on them by 1) Polish army from 1939 to 1945 and 2) Polish partisants only (i.e. Polish army operating in Poland after 1939).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I know of no source that has the breakout of German casualties inflicted by the Polish Army in the East or by Polish Partisans. Overmnans has monthly deaths on the Eastern Front until 12/31/44 and monthly deaths for the entire war. Losses of German Police (63,462) proably include SS units fighting partisans. On the Soviet side of the ledger Krivosheev lists Soviet losses( KIA-MIA/WIA) for every major operation of the war and by yearly quarters. The losses of the Polish Armies are given a seperate line for the operations in 1944-45. Total Polish losses with the Soviets were about 24,000 (KIA/MIA) and Soviet Losses from July 44-May 45 were about 1.7 Million- about 70 times that of the Polish forces. Overmans lists 740,000 Germnan deaths in the East from July-Dec 1944, this does not include 300,000 POW. Plus from Jan-May 1945 the Germans lost 1.2 million (KIA/MIA), 80% against the Russians, 1 million dead plus about 2 million POW, in the East in 1945. In summary from July 44-May 45 the Germans lost about 3 million dead & POW , the USSR 1.7 million plus 24,000 Polish, 35,000 Romanian, 6,000 Czechoslovak and 10,000 Bulgarian allies . If you need additional information let me know--Woogie10w 02:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Civilian Casualties Vastly Under-estimated?

Just looking at Wikipedia's info on the bombing of japan, it is hard to believe that after destroying 2.5 million buildings in urban centers (half-destroying the 65 most populated cities), after killing 100,000 civilians in a firestorm in one day, after the 2 nuclear bombs, that the Japanese civilian casualty number on this page of 600,000 can be anywhere near accurate. That means almost NO ONE died as we blew up half of the area of those 65 most populated cities because the rest of the deaths are already accounted for with the firestorm and nukes. I've had no luck finding alternative figures, however. Does this seem worthy of investigation to anyone? --Joelrosenblum 14:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point, take a look at the footnote. John Dower lists 393,000 civilians killed in the bombing( including 110,000 post war A Bomb deaths), 160,000 killed on Okinawa & Siapan Clodfelter lists 27,000 Merchant Marine crew deaths, that adds up to 580,000 not counting some Japanese civilians who perished after the war in China & Korea due to reprisal attacks. In the footnote mention is made of the study by McArthur's office in 1948 that listed 900,000 excess Japanese civilian deaths on the home islands in 1945. --Woogie10w 14:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

== Japanese Population Balance 1945 ==

                  Japan Population 1/1/45-12/31/45

Description	Amount(Millions)
Population 1/1/45	73,681
Births	1,685
Civilian Deaths	(2,113) A.
Migration -Net	(667) B.
Population 12/31/45	72,586

Notes:
A. The death rate was 2.9% on an annual average annual population of 72,935 million. The pre-war death rate was 1.6% per year. The increase in civilian deaths in Japan during 1945 was 1.3% which is about 948,000.
B. Migration Net- Is mostly the transfer out of military personnel from Japan prior to 8/45. The population data is for the Japanese home islands only and does not include Japanese civilians abroad or military deaths.

Source:
The data to prepare this schedule is listed in the study 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 14:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)