Talk:World War II casualties/Archives/2010/January

...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 [1] 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)