Talk:World War II casualties
 | Military history: World War II Start‑class | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the World War II casualties article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 |
Finlands losses
Dear Sir,
You have asked some information concerning the number of deaths in
Finnland during the WW II.
Based on the World War II database we have found follofing numbers
concerning the Finnish soldiers (include also the soldiers who died to
the diseases):
year 1939 5681
year 1940 21082
year 1941 27023
year 1942 9743
year 1943 6180
year 1944 22777
year 1945 140
Sincerely Yours
Mikko Karjalainen
M.A.
Archivist
Military Archives
--Woogie10w 17:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Correction Marine Corps
Thank you Falcon 4--Woogie10w 01:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
"Casualties by branch of service" section
The figures for China and -- to a lesser degree --- France wouldf make interseting reading, if they are available. Grant | Talk 07:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- The figure for China of 3 million military dead is an estimate by John Dower. R.J. Rummel has listed various sources for military losses in his book China's Bloody Century, he estimates military losses at 3.4 million including puppet troops. The Chinese Nationalist government published an official history in English that is a whitewash of Chaing's brutality and incompetence, they claim imaginary victories and unbelievable Japanese losses, their statistics for Nationalist casualties lack credibility because they are unbelievably low, 1.3 million KIA. The fact of the matter is that millions were killed by Chaing's goons becuase they opposed his regime. The losses of China are a topic that needs serious research, in the meantime I believe Dower's estimate is the best we have--Woogie10w 17:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
- The figure for China of 3 million military dead is an estimate by John Dower. R.J. Rummel has listed various sources for military losses in his book China's Bloody Century, he estimates military losses at 3.4 million including puppet troops. The Chinese Nationalist government published an official history in English that is a whitewash of Chaing's brutality and incompetence, they claim imaginary victories and unbelievable Japanese losses, their statistics for Nationalist casualties lack credibility because they are unbelievably low, 1.3 million KIA. The fact of the matter is that millions were killed by Chaing's goons becuase they opposed his regime. The losses of China are a topic that needs serious research, in the meantime I believe Dower's estimate is the best we have--Woogie10w 17:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
I have yet to see an official breakdown of French losses by branch of service. The following link has some interesting data from various sources that is contradictory [1]--Woogie10w 17:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)In 1978 the French government's section for vetrans affairs stated that they did not have official statistics on human losses in the war. The French government has an on line listing of WW 1 dead that can be searched by name and they promise one for WW2 in the future. In any case if you are in Paris check out the Army and Navy museums, they are excellant. The French role in both world wars is covered in detail. The French tank museum in Samur is real cool, it beats Aberdeen any day [2].--Woogie10w 18:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
newfoundland is not a country
why is newfoundland listed here? it is just a part of canada -— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.7.212 (talk • contribs)
- It wasn't part of Canada until after WW2. It was the Dominion of Newfoundland between 1907 and 1934, and it was a British crown colony separate from Canada in 1934-49. Grant | Talk 03:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It is totally laughable to underestimate the casualies of China
The Japanese and Chinese fought from 1931 Mukden Incident to 1945 the most long for all the WWII relating countries,in the area of most populated in the world.Someone onlookers just dream up a number of casualies,and what is the sources for this number? Are the sources from which these men estimate the nunber primary one or secondary one or tertiary one?--Ksyrie 00:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Edit war over chinese casualties
I've protected the page from editing since it's being reverted back and forth. Please discuss here. Shanes 22:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I wonder whether he or she will accpet the balanced view from one of the most suffered country in the WWII.It's funny to use some scholar sources from the other side of Pacific.It is just like someone using a telescope to report the panoramic view of deluge.--Ksyrie 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I just sent a E-Mail to a Prof. Stephen Phillips who teaches East Asian history asking him for sources that will clear up the issue of Chinese losses, hopefully he can point us in the right direction. In any case I want to get the number right, I do not care if it is 10 or 35 million--Woogie10w 23:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Translation of the material posted in Chinese today
Please provide a translation into English for the readers. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.--Woogie10w 00:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
GOOGLE did the translation for us for free, gee thanks GOOGLE. They know there are folks out there from Missouri like me who need things to be be shown to them.
China's resistance direct estimates of the population losses for a total of 20.62 million people, the disabled population cumulative direct a war, military and civilian casualties to a minimum 34.8 million; Meanwhile, we believe that China's resistance in the 41 million total population of direct casualties, missing with wartime figures captured in 2001, war directly caused the death, disability and loss of a total population of more than 45 million missing in 2001; From the perspective of population loss, the total loss in the period of the War of Resistance against Japan in China 50 million people.
The Chinese article said 20.62 million dead, 34.8 million casualties disabled.
Total population loss of 50 million means dead plus children not born because of the war.
The number of 20,62 million is close to R.J. Rummel's 19.6 million which includes 5.9 million killed by the Nationalists and 2.5 million in floods and famines. Not a word about 11.4 million
dead military, I wonder where that statistic came from.
--Woogie10w 02:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Chinese casualties- FROM WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON SINO_JAPANESE WAR
- The Kuomintang fought in 22 major engagements, most of which involved more than 100,000 troops on both sides, 1,171 minor engagements most of which involved more than 50,000 troops on both sides, and 38,931 skirmishes.
- The Chinese lost approximately 3.22 million soldiers. 9.13 million civilians died in the crossfire, and another 8.4 million as non-military casualties. According to historian Mitsuyoshi Himeta, at least 2.7 million civilians died during the "kill all, steal all, burn all" operation (sanko sakusen) implemented in May 1942 in North China by general Yasuji Okamura and authorized on 3 December 1941 by Imperial Headquarter Order number 575.[1]
Some Chinese historians claimed the total military and non-military deaths of the Chinese were at most 35 million. Most Western historians believed that the casualties were at least 20 million. Property loss of the Chinese valued up to 383,301.3 million US dollars according to the currency exchange rate in July 1937, roughly 50 times of the GDP of Japan at that time (7,700 million US dollars). [citation needed]
- In addition, the war created 95 million refugees.--Woogie10w 10:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think this is reasonable--Woogie10w 10:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hungarian Jewish Losses
According to every history source I've read around 400.000-450.000 Hungarian jews were killed during World War II. In this table they are "only" said to have been 200.000. This is surely wrong and should be corrected. (ISCO) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.105.225.75 (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
- The Holocaust losses listed here are for Hungary in 1939 borders, they do not include the losses from the annexed territories which are listed with Romania (105,000) and Czechoslvakia (100,000).The table is correct--Woogie10w 01:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- On Page 244 of Martin Gilberts Atlas of the Holocaust there is a map that has a geographic breakdown of Hungarian Holocaust losses.--Woogie10w 10:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
{{rewrite}}
I think this article needs to be re-written so it is not just a list of stats. A section should consist of more than just a table or chart, it should have some text in paragraph form introducing it. Currently, it doesn't read like an encyclopedia article but like a list of facts and figures. I've tried adding {{rewrite}}, but it keeps being removed. Anon 22:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- The footnotes provide a narrative and list the sources of the statistics. There are links there to the background to the stats. Take the time and read the footnotes.--Woogie10w 23:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've looked at the footnotes. I'm saying they should be worked into the article instead of being small and at the bottom. I've never questioned the stats, I've only requested the article be copyedited to improve its readability. Anon 23:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Total Casualties
This doesn't add up... We keep saying over 72 million people died, and I noticed in several parts of the article there are stats on how many people died, but because all figures on the casualties in WWII are estimates, (and I've heard from many different sources on different figures of how many people died, all different) it would be better to say over 60 million people died. If you look at some of the other WWII articles they have different figures... the German one says 55-60 million people died, French says 62 million, Italian says 62 million, Spanish says 72, Polish and Dutch 62, and so on.--LtWinters 22:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- The Total is over 70 million when one takes into account the millions of civilians that died of famine and disease caused by the war in Asia and the USSR.--Woogie10w 01:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- But lots of people want a source. I think the root of the problem is that a lot of different sources are being used to draw up a summed total, but there may be some inflation in some cases, or even overlap and duplication. In such a case, a more conservative estimate might be better. This site gives a grand total of about 15 million military deaths, and 26 million civilian deaths, 31 million total, quite conservative. Another site yields 6.3 million Axis military deaths/MIA, almost 12 million Allied military deaths/MIA (18 million, versus the previous 15 million), 3 million Axis civilian deaths, and 32.8 million Allied civilian deaths (35.8 versus the previous 26), and a final grand total of 53.8 million deaths (something most people would accept as approximately realistic). A third website does a poor job of breaking down military versus civilian, but yields a grand total in the neighborhood of 54 million. To finish datamining the first 10 Google results ("casualties of ww2"), this site tallies nearly 6 million Axis military deaths, 18.5 million Allied military deaths (24.5 million total military deaths), 5 million Axis civilian deaths, 25.4 million Allied civilian deaths (30.4 million total civilian deaths), and 54.9 million total deaths. I'll be able to build a ballpark soon, will anyone join me? In the end, I found this site, which does a quite extensive breakdown, as well as providing a printed book source: World War Two Nation by Nation (J. Lee Ready - Published by Arms and Armour - ISBN 1-85409-290-1); 55.4 million total deaths.
- Yeah, I think 55 million is the best rangeless ballpark figure we can get. Does anybody else agree? I almost started editing the article to work with 55 million, until I noticed the giant table with lots and lots of footnotes, and the summed 72 million figure at the bottom. I wonder if the Chinese and Russian totals are really accurate, or possibly inflated (comprising of 59.7% of the total deaths), making 72 million possible original research. Xaxafrad 23:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note well those sites you refer to do not cite sources for their figures, they expect you to accept the data on faith. The J. Lee Ready table does not list sources and is worthless. To copy the numbers from website that does not list sources is unacceptable. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. The giant table you refer to is backed up with sources that can be verified. In the case of the USSR the figure is from the Russian Academy of Science report of 1992( 26.6 million less 3.3 million for the territories annexed in 1939-40 which are listed with Poland, the Baltic States and Rumania. Read the footnotes and check the sources cited, the figure of roughly 72 million is indeed accruate.--Woogie10w 01:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- The total losses on this page were 62 million until a month ago when a user from China posted material from the China Academy of Science that listed 20 million war dead, previously 10 million had been posted. See the posting above on Chinese casualties. The millions that died of war induced famine in Asia and the USSR were war casualties and must be included in the total.--Woogie10w 02:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Was that oberiko or something? I came across that and I never noticed it before and I actually left a comment on his page saying they should be considered major allies because of that... but yeah now that I think of it that is way high. And as many other times it's been mentioned, 72 is way, way too high. This is the only source I've ever seen saying over 65 million. Does anyone have a single source besides this saying there is over 65 million? --LtWinters 02:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- We need to analyze J. Lee Ready's numbers line by line. Do his figures have credibility? Lets not jump to conclusions, lets aim to get the correct information and back it up with verifiable sources.--Woogie10w 11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm aware of the poor sourcing associated with a random sampling of web material from Google, and wasn't suggesting overturning anything. However, unless a source can be found that says 72 million, perhaps a really big set of parenthesis should be placed next to that number. Does anyone know any good templates? Xaxafrad 00:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe we can mention that millions perished in war related famines in addition to those killed directly in the war. You are right, people need an explanation for the total of 72 million.--Woogie10w 01:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Brew up some coffee, I prefer mine strong and black without sugar. Then read through the J Lee Ready website numbers and compare it to the data posted here. The total of 72 million is correct, the sources back the numbers up. All I did was add them down, thats first grade math, 72 million--Woogie10w 00:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- The big differences are in Asia. China, Indonesia, Malaya, Burma and Vietnam lost about 20 million due to famine. The Japanese confiscated the grain and rice and the population starved. These losses are war related and must be included in the total. --Woogie10w 00:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, so youre saying published works, which takes years to make, contain information which is wrong, because they have a fact and we have a different fact and you are saying our fact is right. Well, it seems a bit odd that our estimate is way over the other 20 billion sources that say less than 65 million died. Maybe they already included the fact that 20 million Asians died. --LtWinters 00:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Are you saying that the civilian victims in Asia should be excluded? Take China for example, it would be reasonable to believe the China Academy of Science when they report 4% of the population(20 million)killed during 8 years of Japanese occupation, the UN reported 4 million Indonesians dead caused by the war induced famine, the French reported 1 million dead in the 1945 Indochina famine. These sources are official, not an estimate by one individual. I suspect racism may be the reason why Asian civilian war victims are ignorned by western historians. The 7 million famine victims are included in USSR total, the Polish war dead include deaths caused by famine during the German occupation, these deaths are never questioned and included with war dead. The victims in Asia also deserve to be included in total casualties--Woogie10w 00:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, so youre saying published works, which takes years to make, contain information which is wrong, because they have a fact and we have a different fact and you are saying our fact is right. Well, it seems a bit odd that our estimate is way over the other 20 billion sources that say less than 65 million died. Maybe they already included the fact that 20 million Asians died. --LtWinters 00:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I think to solve the source problem would be to get 3 sources for each fact to agree on the fact, and then put them as footnotes... and this will take a long time, but we want an article that is 100% factual. --LtWinters 23:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Three sources that are incorrect are worthless, a perfect example would be three sources that list Germany losing 3.2 million soldiers in WW2. There are more than three sources that list 3.2 million German war dead, they are all 100% wrong. Overmans has proved this to be false, he should be used as the source. Another example would be UK casualties in WW2, the data from 1945 listed 264,000 dead, this is wrong, but you can find this worthless statistic in more than three sources. The CWGC has lists 383,000 UK war dead, it should be listed as the source. Three wrong numbers in the footnotes are unacceptable.--Woogie10w 00:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Other pages on Wikipedia back up the numbers on the WW2 Casualties page
Japanese occupation of Indonesia 4 million civilian deaths
Vietnamese Famine of 1945 1 million civilian deaths
Second Sino-Japanese War 20 million total deaths
Sook Ching massacre 50,000 killed
Bengal famine of 1943 over 1.5 million dead
Manila massacre over 100,000 killed
There is no way that that you will be abel to plug 55 million on the page without excluding these war dead in Asia.--Woogie10w 01:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC) To get that number down to 55 million you will need to prove that Asian famine victims are not war related. China 10 million, Indonesia 4 million, India 1.5 million and Indochina 1 million. The other Wikipedia pages I listed above back up the fact that the numbers are correct and that the deaths are war related--Woogie10w 12:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm pretty sure 3 wrong sources are better than 1. --LtWinters 02:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Three wrongs dont equal a right. The best example would be German military casualties. Overmans published a study in 2000 that proved losses were 5.3 million rather than 3.2 million, yet there are plenty of sources that still list 3.2 million German military dead, a worthless statistic from 1949.
- Anyway your objective to is force a number of 55 million on the page, in order to plug that 55 million means that you must exclude the Asian famine victims. This is unacceptable even though there are plenty of sources out there that dont't list them--Woogie10w 09:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Three wrongs dont equal a right. The best example would be German military casualties. Overmans published a study in 2000 that proved losses were 5.3 million rather than 3.2 million, yet there are plenty of sources that still list 3.2 million German military dead, a worthless statistic from 1949.
My goal is not to say half the people did not die, and why do you think I am directing that towards the Asian casualties, and not something for the other nations? Just answer me this- with a yes or no, not a 50 paragraph essay- do you think that this article would be more verifiable if there were 3 wrong sources than 1 wrong?
- OK, Please, tell me what number you think is wrong. We need to get the numbers right. You tell me what you believe is the correct statistic and give a source. Then let the real discussion begin. My dad who was a WW2 vet, would have said "shit or get off the pot"--Woogie10w 22:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Some are wrong, some are not. The reason I am suggesting 3 sources for each fact is that because every figure on the amount of people who died is an estimate, right? Well then if 3 respectable sources say the same thing, then it is going to be in a close ballpark to the real thing and it would be better respected. I understand for instance, that you feel that many Asians died in WWII and more than that western historians say, (I'm not disagreeing with you), and when I look in WWII for Dummies, it says 15-22 million Chinese died, but it says for nearly every other estimate something different. It says Italy lost less (than what Wikipedia says) by about 130,000, Germany less by about 1.5 million, USSR more by about 2 million, Greece more by about 200,000, Canada less by about 10,000, Australia 17,000 in combat related causes, and so on. So by having 3 respectable sources, then it would at least serve as a base of our facts. --LtWinters 02:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- World War Two for Dummies would make this page look foolish if it were cited as a source. We need one source that is preferably primary and official.
CHINA last month a guy from China raised the issue and posted data from the China Academy of Science that listed 20 million, a source in English published by Yale backs the number up.
Italy official Italian gov data is used, read the footnote on Italy.
GermanyThe German Army study by Overmans in 2000 concluded that losses were 5.3 million, not including 200,000 Soviets in the Wehrmacht. Actual civilian losses were 1.1 million killed in the Soviet invasion and expulsions (Overmans is the source of this statistic), 370,000 killed in the bombings( recent data from Germany cited in footnotes)and 500,000 by the Nazis(Source R J Rummel). Total 2 million Civilians and 5.5 million soldiers. Overmans is a well known and respected historian. He is a Col in the German Army and teaches at a German University.[6]
Greece the data here is from Fromkin a reseacher who worked for the UN who published a study of WW2 casualties in Europe. This is cited in the footnotes.
USSRThe Russian Academy of Science in 1992 said 26.6 million, including 3.3 million in the territories annexed from Poland, Rumania and the Baltic States. The total for the USSR less these annexed territories is 23 million. The losses in annexed territories are included with Poland, Rumania and the Baltic states.
Canada and Australia the CWGC is the source of the data. This is official government data that you can verifiy by viewing their annual report on line.
- World War Two for Dummies would make this page look foolish if it were cited as a source. We need one source that is preferably primary and official.
This is why we should strive to post the correct number. If you feel a number is wrong please post your arguments here. We need to get these numbers right. --Woogie10w 08:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You are right that it would cetainly look foolish as a title, which is why I would suggest using the direct source it came from and not from the book. The author is Keith Dickson, an associate professor of military studiea at joint forces staff college, national defense university, is a lt.col. (if this makes those figures more verifiable). I am not suggesting we use sites from that- I was simply trying to point out that all sources differ. If I do see a fact I disagree with, I will bring it up. --LtWinters 11:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
J Lee Ready's Numbers Line by Line
Albania- He says " Unknown"- The US government country study of Albania lists 28,000. Lets keep the US Government report as the source
Austria-I guess he includes Austria with Germany.
Australia- He says 31,200. The Commonwealth War Graves Comm and Australian gov list 40,500. Lets keep the CWGC and Australian Gov data as the source
Belgium- He says 95,596. That's close to the Fromkin total of 88,100. However he includes 11,000 in the German Army.
Brazil-He forgot to list the civilian and Merchant Marine losses of 1,000. They must be included in the total
Bulgaria- He lists 56,000 including 40,000 killed by the Soviets after the war. Lets list only WW2 Casualties on the page
Burma-He forgot to list the Burmese 272,000 killed under the Japanese occupation. They deserve to be included in the total
Canada He says 39,219. The Commonwealth War Graves Comm and Canadian gov list 45,000. Lets keep the CWGC and Canada Gov data as the source
China-He says 13,500,000. The conclusion of the revert war a month ago was to post the Chinese Academy of Science data(translated by Google) that losses were 20 million. Lets keep the data aggreeded upon last month
Cuba-He forgot to include the Cubans killed in U Boat attacks
Czechoslovakia- He forgot to include the 345,000 Czechoslovak war dead, 10,000 soldiers were killed fighting with the Allies
Denmark- He includes 4,000 in the German Army
Ethiopia-He forgot to include the Ethiopians killed during the Italian Occupation
Estonia-He lists 73,000. Russian data from 2004 lists 41,000.
Finland He lists 85,000. The Finnish government says 97,000.Lets keep the Gov as the source
France- He lists 519,000 including 19,500 in the German Army. I would like to see the source of his data. There is no official French data, only general estimates. Fromkin is posted here
French Indochina- He forgot to list the 1 million dead in the Vietnamese Famine of 1945 caused by World War 2.
Germany-He says 6.6 million including 3.3 million military. The German Army study by Overmans in 2000 concluded that losses were 5.3 million, not including 200,000 Soviets in the Wehrmacht.
The civilian losses of 3 million that Ready lists include military dead that are in the Overmans report of military casualties. Actual civilian losses were 1.1 million killed in the Soviet invasion and expulsions (Overmans is the source of this statistic), 370,000 killed in the bombings( recent data from Germany)and 500,000 by the Nazis. Total 2 million Civilians and 5.5 million soldiers. Overmans is a well known and respected historian. He is a Col in the German Army and teaches at a German University.
Greece-He says 503,200. Research by Fromkin who worked for the UN concluded losses were 300,000. The issue is how many died in the Famine.
Hungary- He says 633,000. This is close to the estimate of 580,000 by Tomas Stark of the Hungarian Academy of Science. However, Stark lists 300,000 military dead compared to his 237,000
Iceland-He says Unknown. A Wikipidian from Iceland gave us data on 200 civilians killed by the U-Boats.
India- He says 36,092 allied soldiers killed. The Commonwealth War Graves Comm lists 87,000. Lets keep the CWGC data as the source. He was correct in listing the 1.5 million civilians killed in the Bengal Famine
Indonesia-He forgot to list the 4 million dead during the Japanese occupation. This statistic comes from a UN report cited by John W. Dower
Iran-He forgot to list the losses in the 1941 UK occupation of the country
Iraq-He forgot to list the losses in the 1941 UK occupation of the country
Ireland-He forgot to list the civilian losses in U Boat attacks and accidental bombings of Ireland
Italy-He says 483,000. The official Italian gov data lists 445,000 not including 15,000 Africans fighting for Italy.
Japan-He says 2.319 million. He forgot to list the 160,000 civilians killed on Okinawa and 27,000 merchant Marine
Korea-He forgot to list the 70,000 dead during the Japanese occupation. This statistic comes from John W. Dower
Latvia-He forgot to list the 227,000 Latvian war dead
Lithuania-He forgot to list the 353,000 Lithunian war dead
Luxembourg- He lists 4,000 killed in the German Army
Malaya-He forgot to list the 150,000 dead during the Japanese occupation. This statistic comes from John W. Dower
Malta-He forgot to list the 1,500 Maltese killed in the Axis air raids
Mexico-He forgot to include the Mexicans killed in U Boat attacks
Mongolia-He forgot to include the Mongolian losses in the 1939 & 1945 campaigns against Japan
Netherlands He lists 10,000 killed in the German Army
Newfoundland- was a dominion during the war, not part of Canada. These losses should be listed
on a separate line
New Zealand-He says 13,075. The Commonwealth War Graves Comm and New Zeland gov list 11,900. Lets keep the CWGC and New Zeland Gov data as the source
Norway-He lists 3,024 killed in the German Army. This does not agree with Norwegian gov data that lists 700 dead in German forces.
Philippines-He forgot to list the 147,000 dead during the Japanese occupation
Pacific Island-He forgot to list the 57,000 dead during the Japanese occupation
Poland-He lists 5,876 million. I would like to see the source of his data. In any case a well known Polish American historian Ted Piotrowski lists 5.6 million, it is posted here.
Port Timor-He forgot to list the 55,000 dead during the Japanese occupation
Romania- He lists 906,000 including 75,000 in the Soviet occupation. I would like to see the source of his data. I could be correct, but we need the original source before posting.
Singapore-He forgot to list the 50,000 dead during the Japanese occuption
South Africa He says 3,863 The Commonwealth War Graves Comm lists 11,900. Lets keep the CWGC data as the source.
USSR- He says 21.2 million. The Russian Academy of Science in 1992 said 26.6 million, including 3.3 million in the territories annexed from Poland, Rumania and the Baltic States. The total for the USSR less these annexed territories is 23 million. The losses in annexed territories are included with Poland, Rumania and the Baltic states
Spain-He forgot the losses of the Spanish forces fighting on the eastern front
Switzerland-He forgot the losses due to accidental US bombing
Thailand- He said Unknown, a Wikipedian from Thailand gave us the necessary data.
UK- He says 363,000. The Commonwealth War Graves Comm lists 453,000. Lets keep the CWGC data as the source.
USA- He forgot to list the 9,512 brave US Merchant Mariners who gave their lives in the war.
Yugoslavia- He forgot the 1 million Yugoslav war dead.
Now one can see why 72 million is correct and makes sense. The guy with the skull and crossbones on his webpage forgot a lot--Woogie10w 00:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Table
why does the table in Casualties by branch of service list both percent dead and deaths per 1000. Seems pretty pointless to me 212.140.167.99 19:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
WAR RELATED FAMINE DEATHS ARE WELL DOCUMENTED
USSR- War related famine deaths totaled about 7 million according to a report published by the Russian Academy of Science -Rossiiskaia Akademiia nauk. Liudskie poteri SSSR v period vtoroi mirovoi voiny:sbornik statei. Sankt-Peterburg 1995 ISBN 5-86789-023-6 This report reflects the research done after the fall of the Communists, also see Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5-93165-107-1 This is a Russian language handbook on statistics of wars and atrocities of the 20th cent. Erlikman is an anti-Communist who does not apoligize for Stalins crimes. His data is mostly from Soviet and Russian sources, but he has a critical eye.
Second Sino-Japanese War- Famine and war related floods that killed 8 million are well documented in R. J. Rummel. China's Bloody Century . Transaction 1991 ISBN 0-88738-417-X Ho Ping-ti. Studies on the Population of China, 1368-1953. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959. He used data from Chinese Nationalist sources
Japanese occupation of Indonesia 4 million civilian deaths are listed in a UN report cited in- John W. Dower War Without Mercy 1986 ISBN 0-394-75172-8 Dower quotes from an official UN document, case closed
Vietnamese Famine of 1945 1 million civilian deaths are documented in John W. Dower War Without Mercy 1986 ISBN 0-394-75172-8 Click on the Wikipedia link for furthur details
Bengal famine of 1943 over 1.5 million dead are documented in John W. Dower War Without Mercy 1986 ISBN 0-394-75172-8 Click on the Wikipedia link for furthur details
Axis occupation of Greece during World War II. 140,000 war related famine deaths are listed in Gregory, Frumkin. Population Changes in Europe Since 1939, Geneva 1951. Frumkin was a researcher for the UN Click on the Wikipedia link for furthur details
Dutch famine of 1944 Documented in -STEIN, Z. (1975). Famine and human development : the Dutch hunger winter of 1944-1945. New York, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-195-01811-7 Click on the Wikipedia link for furthur details
--Woogie10w 16:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you have other sources which back up each of those figures? With respect, --LtWinters 23:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have plenty of stats on WW2 if you need any help let me know.--Woogie10w 00:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Also I must point out that the current official data from Putin's Russia lists 26.6 million dead in the war including 8.6 million soldiers, 13.7 million civilians in German occupiied territory ( 7.4 million executed, 1.8 million killed in Germany and 4.5 million famine dead), there were an additional 3 million famine victims and an 1.3 million increase in infant mortality in the zone not occupied by Germnany. The loss of 26.6 million is a computed demographic loss based on an an analysis of the population from 1939-1959 by the Russian Academy of Science .The official Russian data from 1995 lists 653,000 Gulag deaths
However the American researcher R. J. Rummel published in 1993 a study Lethel Politics that listed losses as 19.5 million due to the war ( 7.0 million soldiers in battle, 3.0 million POW and 9.5 million civili.ans killed by the Nazis). He also claims 10 million Soviets killed by the Communists. Total dead 29.5 million
--Woogie10w 00:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Although it's obviously a good source, I must point out that the USSR was not trustworthy back in WWII, and those statistics could be used as propaganda. Although you may argue that now it is a democracy and files have been declassified, well people are still being poisoned mysteriosly and to say the truth- I don't trust Russia. They've made up or lied about stuff in the past (i.e. Chernobyl, KGB), and I dunno if they're telling the truth about all their stuff. --LtWinters 13:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- You are right when you say that the statistics are used as propaganda. That was the point of my remarks posted last night. The demographic data tells us that 26.6 million died in excess of the pre war level. That is a raw statistic that only tells us that 26.6 million died as a result of the war. Ivan could have starved to death in a German POW camp or could have starved in the Gulag for supporting the Nazis. In any case we still don't have a decent breakdown of these losses. The bottom line would not change, 26.6 million died in the USSR. The Russian Academy of Science said in 1995 that 7 million died of famine. Do you have a better source breaking out Soviet losses? --Woogie10w 14:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- In the footnote on Soviet casualties I listed military casualties from a Russian researcher Vadim Erlikman, he noted that POW deaths and MIA were undercounted in the official figures. The official Soviet/Russian figure of total POW/MIA deaths for the entire war is 1,783,000!! This way too low. Erlikman says it was 3.2 million; this agrees with most western sources. That is why I used Erlikman's data instead of the offical cover story.
- The Soviet statistic of 26.6 million war dead includes the annexed territories, the Baltic States, and territories of Poland and Rumania. The US never recognized the seizure of the Baltic's and Poland insisted on counting losses inside of 1939 boundries. In order to avoid a double count we must subract the losses in the annexed territories ( about 3.3 million ) from the Soviet official total.
--Woogie10w 14:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC) - You may ask how did the Russians derive the figure of 26.6 million. They took the 1959 Census Total of 209 million subtracted the births and added back the deaths from 1946-1958 to arrive at an estimated population of 175.5 million at the end of the war. The next step was to add births and subtract deaths from 1939-mid 1941 to the Census of 1939 -168.5- million. For an estimated population of 196.6 million in June 1941. The computers were put to work to calulate the hypothetical population growth (1941-45) based on estimated births during the war less deaths that would have occured if there were no war. The computer analyzed the population structure and estimated 26.6 million as the war loss. This is the scientific methodology used to determine those huge numbers on the table. There is no list of names like the ones that exist in the US and the Commonwealth. The Russian Academy of Science study from 1992 is our source for Soviet war dead. The study from 1995 I referred to is from a series of papers published by the Russian Academy of Science on Soviet war losses.--Woogie10w 19:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- In the footnote on Soviet casualties I listed military casualties from a Russian researcher Vadim Erlikman, he noted that POW deaths and MIA were undercounted in the official figures. The official Soviet/Russian figure of total POW/MIA deaths for the entire war is 1,783,000!! This way too low. Erlikman says it was 3.2 million; this agrees with most western sources. That is why I used Erlikman's data instead of the offical cover story.
Summing up estimates
All these numbers are estimates. We cannot add up estimates WITHOUT taking into account error margins and end up with meaningful results. When you add 1000000+-5% to 1000+-5% you'd better DISCARD the second number because it's totally lost in the error margin of the first number. And the main problem is -- we don't know those error margins. The only way to "quickfix" the main table is to specify a huge error margin on the total, like saying "over 60 millions" instead of "72,425,100". Three last digits of the total, for example, will make anyone with the slightest idea of how statistics work laugh. Still the table rows are very valuable, one just shouldn't add them up, they do not contain "numbers" in the exact sense. Alex Kapranoff 10:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- It qiute clear that many of these figures are estimates and that the total is "about 72 million", we can only list the casualties from the sources and add down the numbers. To tweek the numbers and list our own estimates would be original research--Woogie10w 11:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's not original research, because 90% of other sources say that it's a bit over 60 million. Technically, what we have is original research as well because we don't have a source backing up that 72 mill. I agree with Kapranoff. (my apologies, I'm not trying to sound rude)I see that you have been dominating the information that goes into this article, but right now in all fairness its 2 v 1 on changing that. So if no one comes to your aid for agreement, we'll put a note in there about this.--LtWinters 00:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- It qiute clear that many of these figures are estimates and that the total is "about 72 million", we can only list the casualties from the sources and add down the numbers. To tweek the numbers and list our own estimates would be original research--Woogie10w 11:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- ^ Himeta, Sankô sakusen towa nan dataka-Chûgokujin no mita Nihon no sensô, Iwanami Bukuretto 1996, p.43.