Talk:World War II casualties/Archives/2018/July

dab's opinions

Reverts by Woogie10w

It isn't clear what is being objected to here: I took the pains to actually verify the content of the source, and I give the verbatim quote of the relevant passage. Please explain why you think it is appropriate to revert the addition of a verbatim quote with the edit summary "This does not agree with the source".

The rationale for my edit was that the two footnotes "S1" and "S2" purported to contrast "old" and "recent" estimates, while this was not in fact the case. The main discrepancy is the count of "c. 2 million" vs. "0.5 to 0.6 million" as the estimated casualties of due to the flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50). So I went and consulted the most recent publication by Haar (Haar 2009) to see how the "0.5-0.6M" figure is explained. It turns out that this isn't about "old" vs. "recent" estimates, it is about "total population unaccounted for" and "positively attested deaths". Haar (2009) perfectly agrees that a total "population loss" of 2 million, however, this number apparently includes an unknown number of military deaths, and an unknown number of deportees who may or may not have died. I have adapted the footnote based immediately on the verbatim quote I have given in the note, so please tell me how the revert to the misleading, unexplained revision is an improvement, let alone an improvement explained by the edit summary "does not agree with the source". --dab (𒁳) 12:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Since User:Woogie10w has now given an explanation of what he meant (after posting "Please do not guess if you are not familiar with the sources!" three times), I think this is resolved now. He appears to have objected to the privileged mention of Soviet deportations, while the possible reasons for the "unknown" cases are much more diverse. I can accept this without further issue, there is no reason to resort to blanket reverts and random outbursts of condescension over something like this.

But I guess this kind of ... passion is what ultimately results in highly vetted WWII articles, so it's all good. --dab (𒁳) 13:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

"Unknown" cases in expulsion of Germans

I originally came here to look for an explanation of the large discrepancy of 1.5 million in the German civilian deaths figure. This is quite a substantial question, even for the overarching scope of this page, as it is close to about 5% of the global civilian casualty figure. But the main article on this topic would be Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50), so I will try to find some more informative sources for that page first.

The main problem I have with Wikipedia coverage atm is that there is an undue representation of controversy. The article text suggests that there is a controversy over casualty figures. It turns out that there is no such controversy. There appears to be consensus that there were 500-600k known violent deaths (konkrete Gewaltopfer), and a total of about 2 million "population loss" (Bevölkerungsverlust). Both figures are perfectly credible, and while certainly not precise, undisputedly in the right ballpark. The actual controversy in Germany is which figure should be cited publicly when discussing the issue. This is purely a question of current-day politics, and not one of historiography, and I do not have an opinion on it.

It may certainly be "methodologically unsound" to use "population loss" as casualty estimates, but it is certainly methodologically even more unsound to cite figures without stating the methodology that was used, or to juxtapose estimates based on one methodology with estimates based on another methodology in a html table and then calculate the sum total at the bottom of the column without further explanation.

My updated question now is how these 1.5 million "unknown" cases are composed. Haar (2009) lists the following categories:

missing persons, unidentified bodies, decline in births, naturalizations, unaccounted-for military deaths, murdered German Jews, and (again) missing persons.

damit sind alle deutschen Verluste von 1939 bis 1944/45 in diesen Regionen gemeint, einschließlich der Vermissten und Unidentifizierten. Außerdem sind in dieser Zahl auch vermeintlichen deutschen Geburtenausfälle, die Staatsangehörigkeitswechsler, ungezählte Wehrmachtstote, die ermordeten deutschen Juden und Vermisste einbezogen.

The figure of 2.8 million is cited (deprecatingly) by Haar as including 220,000 deaths among West Germans who were moved to the East towards the end of the war to escape the bombing raids, and 350,000 deaths in the (re-)deportation of Russlanddeutsche. This is another half-million deaths which, indeed, our summary must be careful not to count doubly. Afaics, Haar (2009) does not dispute these figures, he just argues that when claiming Vertreibungsverluste, only ethnic German settlers native to east of the Oder-Neisse line known to have been killed directly should be counted under this term. The additional half-million Germans who were killed there, or died in the course of deportation to the USSR, should not be included as Vertreibungsverluste, as they were not native to the area where they were killed but merely happened to be displaced there during the war.

So, sure, I suppose this case can be made, but we have to be sure to accurately reflect that this is the case being made, plus we should stash the additional half-million dead somewhere in the grand total. This appears to be the explicit argument by Steinbach (1999), who criticizes "questionable attempts" (Haar's) to present the deaths by direct violence as the sum total of victims in a situation where the majority of deaths due to the expulsions or deportations were by exhaustion, disease, hunger etc. --dab (𒁳) 13:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Dbachmann your calculations have no place on Wikipedia, we must stick to the sources. If you believe Steinbach and the German government that's OK, we need to present that POV along with the critics like Haar. We need to report what Haar says in his articles. We can't misrepresent his position or guess what he wrote.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Dbachmann the source for the German govs figure of 2.0 million is Gerhard Reichling, Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen,[1]includes in his figures 568,00 Germans who were moved to the East towards the end of the war to escape the bombing raids(108,000 deaths) and the Soviet Germans(310,00 deaths) --Woogie10w (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Haar (2006) controvery

diff. I am getting fed up with this, User:Woogie10w. I have attempted to treat you as a constructive collaborator in spite of your belligerent tone, but clearly it is you who is misrepresenting this "controversy". No, Haar is not arguing that his "500-600k deaths" include "those deporated to the USSR". Quite the contrary. Haar is not disputing the official figure of 2.0-2.5M civilian deaths in the context of the expulsions. All he is arguing is that the best estimates for direct violent killings in the context of the expulsions should be used when discussing Vertreinbungsverluste. This is all this is about.

This is a very localized controversy surrounding a single historian, which was partially fought in the journalistic sphere, and it is of very limited interest here. The official estimate of deaths is 2.0-2.5 million. The controversy concerns how many of these were "crimes against humanity", "revenge killings", etc. and how many should be counted under "war-related starvation, exhaustion, hunger, etc.". Haar's best estimate is 0.5-0.6 million, and this isn't even disputed by anyone. You are actively misrepresenting a stupid political controversy from 2006 Germany in an article that shouldn't even discuss this question in any detail. --dab (𒁳) 14:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Haar is disputing' the official figure of 2.0-2.5M civilian deaths. You need to read the articles by Haar. You are wasting your time and mine today--Woogie10w (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you not have any reading comprehension, at all? Are you doing this deliberately? I realise that Haar is "disputing the official figure". Not because he is disputing this is the number who may have died, but because he insists it is misleading "methodology" to cite any number other than rock-solid evidence of violent killings. Sure, we can report this. Of course, all official representatives are perfectly aware that the 2 million figure is a rough estimate, and includes hundreds of thousands of deaths in Soviet camps. I seriously doubt that you have read and understood Haar's article. You also haven't read and understood a thing that I have written above.

So yes, you are wasting our time, but at least the article is improving because you baited me into citing the relevant sources verbatim, so they can be evaluated on their own merit. This is just stupid. I am not here to doubt anyone's estimates, I just insist that whatever estimates this article is going to cite must be explained for what they are. Haar's methodology is ludicrously strict, and employed nowhere else, whatsoever, on this entire page. He still published, so go ahead and use it, but make sure to represent it for what it is. --dab (𒁳) 14:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Dbachmann I have hard copies of all four articles by Haar. I can tell that you are not familiar with what he said. You are just guessing--Woogie10w (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

This is just a joke now. It was I who had to quote Haar's text at you. I am not going to explain the article to you paragraph by paragraph, but if you think that I am mistaken about what Haar saying, then cite a relevant passage to me and we will see.

Fortunately, I have already cited the reaction of the secretary of state of the Federal Ministry of the Interior, and lo and behold, his understanding of what Haar is doing coincides exactly with mine. It's as if we both have read the same article. --dab (𒁳) 14:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Dbachmann on Wikipedia we present all major POVs on a topic. The German Government and Haar. We have a NPOV. The German Historical Museum puts the figure at 600,000, maintaining that the figure of 2 million deaths in the previous government studies cannot be supported. Dbachmann, Haar and The German Historical Museum are in agreement.Flucht und Vertreibung aus den ehemaligen Ostgebieten des Deutschen Reichs hielten bis lange nach Kriegsende an und forderten zwischen 1944 und 1947 bis zu 600.000 Menschenleben. Amtliche Zahlen aus den 1950er Jahren gingen von ca. zwei Millionen Toten aus, halten einer Überprüfung aber nicht stand.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Dbachmann you support the German gov figure of 2 million, it is disputed by Haar and German Historical Museum. On Wikipedia we present both POVs not just the one we think is correct. We must have a NPOV. --Woogie10w (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Dbachmann wrote Fortunately, I have already cited the reaction of the secretary of state of the Federal Ministry of the Interior, and lo and behold, his understanding of what Haar is doing coincides exactly with mine. It's as if we both have read the same article. Haar actually wrote in diesen Regionen gemeint, einschließlich der Vermissten und Unidentifizierten. Außerdem sind in dieser Zahl auch vermeintlichen deutschen Geburtenausfälle, die Staatsangehörigkeitswechsler, ungezählte Wehrmachtstote, die ermordeten deutschen Juden und Vermisste einbezogen. Die Zahl der konkret bezeugten Opfer beläuft sich jedoch nicht mehr als auf 0,5 bis 0,6 Mio. Personen insgesamt Dbachmann please lets not misrepresent Haar's position. --Woogie10w (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)