Talk:World War II casualties/Archives/2014/January
 | This is an archive of past discussions about World War II casualties. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Casualities in India : Edit request
I wonder, why is that the people deid because of femine are added to the list? It is totally misleading! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chittipo (talk • contribs) 10:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The inclusion of the deaths in the Bengal famine of 1943 is not misleading. The famine of 1943 in Bengal was caused by the disruption of transport during the war. War related famine is included with the casualties of the USSR, China, the Dutch East Indies, French Indochina and Greece. Total casualties of 85 million includes deaths from war-related disease and famine. Civilians killed totaled from 38 to 55 million, including 13 to 20 million from war-related disease and famine. The details are in the footnotes.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I broke out those deaths caused by War related famine--Woogie10w (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Number of casulties
Table of casualties are completely unreliable. What it mean 20-30 millions or 60-80 millions? WWII is probobly most investigated event in history of mankind and using this kind of numbers is silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.137.182.212 (talk) 10:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
UK Deaths
The total number of deaths is stated as 450,900 with 383,800 servicemen "including colonies". However, the percentage of the population is given as 0.94% which is 450,900 as a percentage of the UK population of 47,760,000. If the 383,800 does include colonies how can you use the population of the UK without the populations of colonies to work out a percentage? Or should the phrase "including colonies" really be there, are these just UK deaths only?
The figures for the colonies were not significant and would not materially change the overall percentage figure of 0.94% for the UK. Also residents from the UK were serving in colonial regiments and are listed with the colonies.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Also the statement in the footnotes - "The losses listed here are those reported by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Total military deaths were 383,786[6]. is the source of the military dead for the British Empire. " - makes no scene. Furthermore reference 6, for the 383,786, is The Commonwealth War Graves Commission Annual Report 2010-2011, I have looked at this reference and can find none of the number being referred to. Please supply page numbers in the reference or another reference for the number 383,800. --82.34.161.223 (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The description in the Commonwealth War Graves Commission report on page 45 is "United Kingdom and Colonies", they do not breakout the figures for the colonies. The figures for the Colonies were listed separately by the UK War Dept. in their November 1945 report which is listed in the footnotes. The research by Commonwealth War Graves Commission has identified additional deaths not included in the 1945/46 figures issued by the War Dept. The CWGC also lists the figures of 383,700 identified burials and commemorated on memorials on page 45 of their report.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
American bias
Why is the main photo of american dead? The Americans came in late, played a small role, and profiteered. Having the first photo be of Americans suggests otherwise, and is disrespectful to the other nations who really suffered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.171.172.161 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
According to this article, more Americans were killed than the UK. While they did come in late, how did they play a small role, or are you just attempting to troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.65.196.20 (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Why put american militar casualties as main image, and not mass murder civilian casualties like Hiroshima or Nagasaki pictures? Bad choise. No matter the role, main picture should be of civilian casualties. Since ALL civilians lost the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velvetsicilia (talk • contribs) 06:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The IP above is from Poland, not the UK. He/she is most likely referring to the massive Polish civilian casualties during WW2 (or Chinese, or Soviet civilians). 82.19.76.153 (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)