Talk:World War II casualties/Archives/2009/May

Nazi Germany?????

In the table, and sometimes elsewhere, Germany is identified as "Nazi Germany." Germany was Germany. Most of its soldiers were NOT members of the Nazi party. Even if they were, Germany was Germany. There was no separate Nazi Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.223.130 (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nazi Germany covers that part of Germany's history, so linking to it can be more useful than the generic Germany article. Maybe it should be piped — [[Nazi Germany|Germany]]?

—WWoods (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't the borders of Nazi Germany extend further than the current German borders? As in Czechoslovakia, Alsace Lorraine etc? TastyCakes (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nazi Germany is more precise, let's just keep it as is.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. TastyCakes (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Piping is fine, but it should not say "Nazi Germany". john k (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Albania

Who are these military deaths for Albania? Albania wasn't an independent state at the time, it was ruled by Italy. Are these Albanians who fought in the Italian army? Or are they resistance fighters? A footnote clarifying what's going on here would be useful.
Albania was an independant state in 1939. There is only one figure for Albania 28,000 per the communist gov, there is no breakout that you seek. Do you know of another source besides the source printed by the US gov cited in the footnotes?--Woogie10w (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I was told by an Albanian who graduated college there in the 1990's that the offical communist gov figure of 28,000 was disputed, I have yet to see his source. I need to research this topic, thanks for proding me Off to the NY Public Library!!--Woogie10w (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for questioning the figure, the online souce was updated since 2005 when I first posted it.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Here is the link [1] go to The Communist Takeover of Albania

I have a Russian handbook Human Losses in the 20th Cent published in Moscow 2004 which gives a figure of 55,000 total Albanian dead, 20,000 military & 35,000 civilian. The author Vadim Erlikman does not cite his source for Albania. Russian and Soviet era statistics are often at variance with those from the west. The fact that he did not cite his source means the number is as soft as shit--Woogie10w (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just interested to know who these people even are. What is this number supposed to refer to? I assume it means partisan resistance casualties. And Albania may have been theoretically a sovereign state after March 1939, but it was basically an Italian colony. I have no idea whether it maintained a separate military under Italian control after that point, or if Albanians just fought in the Italian army. john k (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Austria

Why do we list civilian and Jewish deaths for Austria, but no military deaths? Austria was a part of Germany during World War II. Either it should not be listed at all, and all its deaths should be added to the Germany total, or the deaths of Austrians in the Wehrmacht ought to be listed here. It makes little sense to treat Austria separately for civilians, but within Germany for soldiers. john k (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The military deaths are included with Germany, read the footnote for Germany. Germany conscripted ethnic Germans from many countries in eastern Europe not just Austria. The US military had foriegn nationals in its ranks from 1941-45, we do not count these people as Irish Phillipino, or Japanese they were Americans. The same is true for Germany and other countries. The UK had casualties from all its African and Asian colonies. We must be consistant, these men died in the German uniform, they were German not Austrian Casualties--Woogie10w (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Austrian Holocaust deaths are always broken out separately, never included with Germany.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Was Michael Strank and American or a Slovak?--Woogie10w (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Were the casualties of the 442nd Infantry Regiment (United States) Japanese or American?--Woogie10w (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Were the casualties of the 81st (West Africa) Division British or African?--Woogie10w (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Were the Goumier French or Morrocan?--Woogie10w (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Were the Senegalese Tirailleurs French or African?--Woogie10w (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments about the 442nd Infantry Regiment, or whatever, are completely irrelevant. Those were a bunch of Americans of Japanese descent who fought for the U.S. army in the war. Michael Strank was born in Czechoslovakia and moved to the US when he was a child, and, again, served in the US Army during the war. Neither of these is anything like the situation for Austria. Austrian troops in the Wehrmacht were not Germans of Austrian descent, or naturalized German citizens who had been born in Austria. Austria itself was part of Germany. Given that Austria was part of Germany, I agree with you that it makes sense to list Austrian Wehrmacht casualties under Germany. But it makes just as much sense to list Austrian civilian casualties under Germany. And certainly, it is deeply misleading to suggest that only 1.5% of Austrians died during the war by simply ignoring the large number of military casualties from Austria. My preference would be not to list Austria separately at all, but to mention its civilian and holocaust casualty figures in a footnote to the German total. And for god's sake stop adding examples! john k (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea but Austria was occupied by Germany, Holocaust deaths are listed seprately. Also today in Austria do breakout the civilian deaths from Germany,--Woogie10w (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Also think man, there were Germans in Poland and Czechoslovikia. Are they Czech & Polish or German?--Woogie10w (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to add the nrs together on a pad but not in the article, Austria was occupied by Germay--Woogie10w (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We should not bury Austria in the footnotes.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The situation is somewhat different. I'd say Sudeten Germans, like Austrians, count as Germans, since Germany's annexation of the Sudetenland was internationally recognized before the outbreak of war. The ethnic Germans of Poland would not count as German, since Germany's Polish annexations were not internationally recognized. And Austria was not occupied. Austria was part of Germany. To say otherwise is to give credence to the hoary old "Austria was Hitler's first victim" nonsense. Austria was no more Hitler's victim than Germany was. If the Austrians want to note their own civilian deaths, they are free to do so, and we can be helpful to our readers by noting their figures somewhere in the article. I don't know that it should be in a separate Austrian entry in the table, though. As to Holocaust deaths, the situation might be somewhat different, as Austrian Jews were not granted German citizenship, since by 1938 even German Jews no longer had German citizenship. But, again, this could be noted in the Germany part of the table - perhaps noting "160,000 Jews from pre-1938 Germany plus 65,000 Austrian Jews," or some such. john k (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Every source on the Holocaust breaks out Austrian deaths, they are not included with Germany. That is what our sources say, that is what we post.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not suggested otherwise. I am suggesting having a Germany box which, separately, lists German and Austrian casualties in the Holocaust, and does not add them together. I think this would serve the purpose of indicating the distinction between the two without forcing us to write nonsense (which is what the claim that Austria lost 1.5% of its population is). john k (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

OK Lets look at Yugoslavia, are Croatian deaths to be listed seprately, they had a puppet state?

The Baltic states are listed seprately, the Soviets invaded them just like hitler in Austria--Woogie10w (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Their annexation occurred after the war began, and was not immediately recognized by other states. Furthermore, what Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians participated in the war generally fought on the German side, not the Soviet. No Austrians fought on the allied side. As to Yugoslavia, I'm not sure. The current listing isn't terribly useful for military deaths - it would be very useful to see Royal Yugoslav Army vs. Partisans vs. Chetniks vs. Ustashe deaths, if it were possible to separate them out. I assume this would be very difficult to do, however. john k (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You wrote I'd say its not what we say but what the sources say, the Holocaust histories all list Austria and Germany seprately--Woogie10w (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The important point to remember is that we should consult the footnotes, not just the main table.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I was not suggesting combining the figures, merely listing them separately in the same box. john k (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Including Austria, Germany annexed territories with 20 million people. During the war the Allies did in fact recognize that austria was occupied and did not treat it as part of Germany. Leave it as is --Woogie10w (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

More important for Austria's future, however, was the evolution in the Allies' position on Austria. In November 1943, the foreign ministers of the Soviet Union, Britain, and the United States met and issued the Moscow Declaration. In contrast to the earlier Allied acceptance of the Anschluss, the declaration described Austria as "the first victim of Hitlerite aggression" and called for the reestablishment of an independent Austria. At the same time, however, the declaration also held Austria liable for its participation in the war, effectively giving it the status of an enemy state. Eric Solsten, ed. Austria: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1994.

Case closed, the Allies considered Austria as "the first victim of Hitlerite aggression"--Woogie10w (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Case closed? Not at all. The Allies, for political reasons, decided to call Austria that - they also treated Austria as a defeated Axis power. And that position wasn't decided on until 1943 - up until then, as your own source admits, the allies had accepted the Anschluss as legitimate and Austria as part of Germany. I don't see why a political allied decision of 1943 should trump both historical reality and the allies' own prior position. We are not the allied government, and we have no obligation to take up whatever official position they worked out. Austria was a de facto part of Germany from 1938 to 1945, and it was seen as a de jure part of Germany by almost everybody for most of that period. In retrospect, the allies decided it would be useful to change their de jure categorization of Austria, but we do not have to follow them there. The allied powers all effectively accepted Anschluss when it happened. This is in distinction to, say, the German occupation of Poland and annexation of large Polish territories in 1939. It is even different from the fate of rump Czechoslovakia, whose break-up and division into an independent Slovakia and a Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was never recognized by anybody else. It is different from the fate of Manchukuo, whose status as an independent state was never recognized by anybody else. I believe it's different from the Baltic states, whose annexation by the Soviet Union was not recognized by other countries until towards the end of the war. Austria was universally accepted as part of Germany after 1938 until the allies decided that it was actually "the first victim of Hitlerite aggression." Politicians don't get to retroactively rewrite history. And, again, my main problem with the current set-up is the very misleading implication that Austria lost only 1.5% of its population during World War II. Either we are dealing with the political units that existed between 1939 and 1945, in which case Austria was part of Germany; or else we are dealing with some sort of retroactively created political units based on later borders, in which case we should include Austrian Wehrmacht casualties separately from German Wehrmacht casualties. I much prefer the former. Aside from the Holocaust, which is a special case, I can see no justification for treating Austrian civilian casualties differently from Austrian military casualties. john k (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The table I inserted solves our problem, readers see the Third Reich as a whole and the components that make up the total. There is no need to delete Austria. Also the 7 million ethnic Germans which are included in the populations of Czechoslovikia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, the Baltic states and Yugoslavia are listed. To be consistant we need and keep the population totals at 1939. To pull these 7 million ethnic Germans out of the respective countries and include them with Germany would create a mess--Woogie10w (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree about 1939 population totals - the table looks like an elegant solution. john k (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Papua-New Guinea

According to Lal and Fortune in their book The Pacific Islands (pg 248), there were at least 15000 P-NG civilian deaths during WWII. Military deaths were about 110. Are these accounted for somewhere else on this table?

I think that if Malta's 1500 has a spot, surely Papua New Guinea's 15000 should have one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.139.118 (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch, I will go to the NY Public Library today to verify this information. They have the book--Woogie10w (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The territories of Papua and New Guinea were part of Australia during the war. From looking at the source given for the Australian casualty figures it seems pretty clear that they weren't included with Australian casualties here though. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The Territory of Papua was part of Australia, but New Guinea was a Class C League of Nations Mandate. john k (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The civilians were not included, but the 110 military would be with the UK and Australia.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody know how to drop in the flag?--Woogie10w (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The flag wasn't adopted until PNG became an independent country in the 1970s so it's not suitable for use here. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I found the The Pacific Islands on Google books, Google saved me a trip to the library, thanks Google--Woogie10w (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What pages were your sources? Page 243 isn't part of the Google books version I found. Nick-D (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The version in my school library has it on 248. On google books, they have it on 244. I found it by entering either killed or perished in the search box on the top right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.139.118 (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the information, we need people like you on Wikipedia. Open an account. You proved that Wikipedia can be a reliable source of information. So many people of color have been forgotton on the standard casualty lists.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)