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

Further casualties

Dwork and Pelt's book Flight from the Reich mentions that 180 Iraqi Jews were killed in Baghdad in 1941 on page 361. I believe that this loss of life was war related and ought to be mentioned either in a footnote or on the chart, whichever works best. 69.122.132.127 (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I just checked this book @ Google books. These deaths seem to be related to the local mid-east conflict, not WW2.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, good point, but couldn't it also be said that the violence in Iraq following the coup was related to the conflict (ie if Rashid Ali's faction hadn't launched the coup and hadn't been routed by the British, there wouldn't have been a power vacuum)? One could also argue that the violence in Iraq as a whole was merely an anti-colonial rising staged at a time meant to take advantage of the British being distracted rather than an element of WWII. In my opinion, adding it would give a more complete picture (especially given how few people are even aware that Iraq and Iran were involved in the conflict). The article does make mention of the Port Chicago blast, which was just one (albeit a terrible) wartime industrial accident. I personally would err towards giving too much data. 69.122.132.127 (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Talking of Iraq, someone at long last as added a casualty figure to the Anglo-Iraqi War article; the war itself was part of the Second World War. However i tend to agree that possibly unrelated civillian deaths should probably not be included.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In any case I have never seen these losses presented in the major histories of the Holocaust; for example those by Hilberg, Dawidowicz, Bauer and Gilert.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)--Woogie10w (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Tomorrw I will be in the New York Public Library to verify some sources, while there I will check this book. I want to know who are Dwork and Pelt?, what are their credentials?, also what is their source for these reported deaths of 180 Jews?.Are they credible?--Woogie10w (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked Dwork and Pelt's book Flight from the Reich. There is indeed mention of 180 Jews killed in a pogrom in Iraq in 1941 that was incited ny Rashid-Ali, a supporter of Germany. There was no source cited for this incident. The authors have written a number of popular histories on the Holocaust. The book was published by Norton.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What about the iraqi military deaths per the article linked to?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Per Coldfelter P. 498 500 KIA-WIA and 400 POW, 70 AFV destroyed.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

While that sources mixes up the dead and wounded we have this source per the article that states "The Iraqi army admitted to losses of 1,750, including 500 killed."

It looks very much like rounded figure but at least its a start in establishing the number of Iraqis who died due to the war?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Source Looks good to me. Time to turn on BBC and get an update on your politics--Woogie10w (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It aint lookign good mate! :( --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Lithuania 1939 Borders-Less:Klaipeda

With Vilnius or without?Xx236 (talk) 10:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Without, It does not include Polish losses per the sources Read the description Jan 1939 Borders--Woogie10w (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Jan 1939 Borders - where?Xx236 (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Wiith Vilnius the population was 2.9 million not 2.4 million--Woogie10w (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In Jan 1939 Vilnius was part of Poland and is included in the Polish population figure of 11.5 million; the 1939 figure for Lithunia of 2.4 million does not include Vilnius.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I know the facts, but where the reader can find them in this article?Xx236 (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What facts are you referring to? Please give details, we need to be specific. You know the facts, but do you have a reliable source to support your arguments? --Woogie10w (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I mean the facts you mentioned. I asked only if a reader is informed about them, now he/she is.Xx236 (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I updated the USSR section point out that Vilnius was included with Poland not Lithunia, also on the main table the losses for the USSR(24 million) and Poland(5.6-5.8 million) are for 1939 borders. The USSR figure does not include Polish territories that went to the USSr in Aug 1945. BTW the Polish figure of 5.6-5.8 million is from the IPN in Aug 2009. Readers have all the facts.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Description	Amount 1939
Lithunia 1/1939	2,550,000
Less Klaipeda(Went to Germany)	(150,000)
Annexed by USSR 1940	2,400,000

Note: there were very few people left in Klaipeda in 1944 when the Soviets arrived. --Woogie10w (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Description	Amount 1939
W. Ukraine	7,800
W. Bealrus	4,700
Vilnius	500
Polish Territory Annexed 9/1939	13,000
Less Bialystok-Przemysl region (returned 1945)	(1,500)
USSR Aug 1945	11,500

History of Lithuania doesn't describe any big German crimes against ethnic Lithuanians. So either such descriptions should be added there or the Lithuanian numbers verified. Xx236 (talk) 07:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The figures are the actual demographic war losses suffered by Lithuania that was reported by the Russian Academy of Science in 1993. They were occupied by the USSR, just like Poland and persons were deported to the interior of the USSR. When they were occupied by Germany the Jews were killed in the Holocaust and people deported to Germany as forced laborers. The figure is correct and is properly sourced.--Woogie10w (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I found this Wikipedia article to be informative Occupation of Lithuania by Nazi Germany, they were treated in a manner similar to ethnic Poles--Woogie10w (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously not. The article doesn't inform about mass executions of ethnic Lithuanian. The Lithuanians had some level of authonomy, didn't fight against Germans. The number of Lithuanian victims was allegedly higher than the number of killed Jews. The Holocaust in Lithuania is documented, we know places and numbers. Where and when did 212,000 non-Jewish Lithuanians die? Xx236 (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You write Obviously not, do you have a source? The losses are a demographic estimate made in 1993 by the Russian Academy of Science. Note well we cannot break out in detail how these people died, many like those in the Kresy region in Poland were deported by the Soviets. The Polish deaths due to Soviet deportations are included in the 2009 figure of 5.6-5.8 million Polish war dead, the same holds true for Lithuania. The number makes sense when one considers the deaths of forced laborers in the USSR and Germany. 2.5 million non Jews died in Poland 8%, 200,000 in Lithunia 9%. When you take into account all those who died in the USSR it makes sense. --Woogie10w (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please remember that WW2 casualties include victims of the Soviets as well as the Nazis, that is the POV of Polish historians at the IPN. Also we do not have exact figures on how these people died, only demographic estimates. There are no complete lists with the names of the death and the exact cause of death, for example the IPN in Poland estimates 5.6-5.8 million died in the war yet only 1.5 million are confirmed deaths.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Poland has been able to confirm only 1.5 million war dead as of last year [1]

The IPN reported in August of last year that Poland lost 5.6-5.8 million persons in the war. [2]

Yad Vashem has has collected and recorded the names of half of the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis. Millions more still remain unidentified:[3]

As you can see WW2 casualties are in part a demographic estimate, that is true in Poland, the Holocaust and in Lithunia also--Woogie10w (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The title of the table is "Human Losses of The USSR in World War II". Maybe we need some description what it means? Lithuanian partisans fought to 1953, which looses belong to WWII and which ones don't?Xx236 (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The Russian Academy of Science Report was clear, the losses were up to 1945 the end of the war. Please remember that there are no complete lists of the dead in Poland, Germany and the USSR, only demographic estimates. We cannot determine when and how each of the deaths occured--Woogie10w (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"Human Losses of The USSR in World War II" has many meanings, one of them is "Human Losses caused by enemies of the USSR". If you mean "Demographic bilance 1939-1945 in Soviet borders", write it precisely. We don't add the number of Soviets murdered by NKVD during the Winter War in the whole SU to the number of military casualties of the war.Xx236 (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You wrote We don't add the number of Soviets murdered by NKVD during the Winter War in the whole SU to the number of military casualties of the war The Russian Academy of Science determined the demographic population losses from 1939-45 was 26.6 million(in 1946 borders, 24 million in 1939 borders). That is clearly stated in the foonotes, these losses are from all causes from 1939-45, including Soviet represion. The same is true for Poland the IPN figure of 5.6-5.8 million includes losses are from all causes from 1939-45, including Soviet represion. We must be consistant. The article is correct because we cannot breakout exact causes in all cases, the sources give a demographic estimate for all causes related to the war, not only battle casualties, that is why Humnan Losses is a correct description in this article.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You wrote The title of the table is "Human Losses of The USSR in World War II". Maybe we need some description what it means?

Plese see World War II Casualties#Human losses by country

--Woogie10w (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Proof

Just wondering if there can be any proof to back up the total number of deaths United Kingdom compared to United States, with the Wiki article showing that US lost more soldiers the the UK, the only thing that grips me is how can this be when the US joined the war after the tragic Pearl Harbour bombings in 1941 where as the UK and british commonwealth had been fighting since 1939, and to conclude does the WWII casulty rate for civilians also include the uncalculated death toll from the London bombings.

If you read the notes attached to each line of casualties you will find all the evidence you require. You may also note that the battles the United States forces fought in the Pacific were rather bloody whereas, for example, while the Untied Kingdom had been at war longer it had not fought the same kind of intense battles.

Additionally during 1939 the British military were not that involved in much fighting, in 1940 after a brief campaign most of the BEF was withdrawn from Europe (see Evacuation of Dunkirk etc) leaving the British main battleground being in the North African desert (with brief campaigns on mainland Greece and in Crete, the middle east). The battles fought were not that bloody and the majority of losses suffered at the Battle of Gazala or in Singapore were men captured. Tt was only from 1942/43 that the British Army was in constant action worldwide (Tunisa, Italy, Burma etc with the latter being fought largly by the Indian Army - generally with Indian troops outnumbered the British)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

For all the good that the US accomplished, I feel that the artcicle has been aimed to "steal the sympothy vote" and that it should be reviewed carefuly and maybe sourced from a non-American source.

How is the article bais agaisnt the United States?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not mean to offend but please search Wiki for the "London bombings" and see how the death toll is much greater than whats shown on the civillian WWII casulties.

If you are referring to The Blitz, 43,000 deaths are recorded in the article whereas this article notes 67,100 total civillian deaths. Also note the death toll during the blitz, as noted in the article, encompasses all of the United Kingdom not just London. That article also notes a further 8,938 as a result of the V-weapons later in the war.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

sdak —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyskippy (talk • contribs) 22:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are the sources for UK and US casualties

The figures for the UK come from the CWGC an official source, you can check the figures online at the CWGC, see their report page 10 [4]

The figures for the US are from the US Defense Dept for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps. The figures are online [5]

There is separate source listed for the US Coast Guard [6]

The US Merchant Marine [7]

The deaths of interned US civilians, [8] Woogie10w (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding civilian casualties in the UK C.W.G.C. is charged by Royal Charter to compile and maintain a ROLL OF HONOUR of those civilians under Crown Protection who died as a result of enemy actions, in the Second World War only- That would include Crown Colonies as well as the UK--Woogie10w (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

War Related Famine Deaths

Catherine Newberry's book The Cohesion of Opression: Clientship and Ethnicity 1860-1960 states that there were 300,000 famine deaths related to the war in Rwanda-Urundi in 1943. It's on page 158. Given the scope of this, and the fact that it can be related to the war(and more importantly is referenced by the author) I believe it should be included.69.122.132.127 (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Any takers? I think that if we include war related famine deaths from Europe and Asia, we should include the African examples too. Jabberwok2010 (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• There was no conflict in Central Africa, they are not related to WW2. The claim is sheer puffery, in fact it is ridiculous. we would need additional support for this claim--Woogie10w (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• I checked this source on Google Books the author does not state that these deaths are related to the war. There was a two year drought, relief supplies were brought in from the Congp. Please see [9]--Woogie10w (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• The War related famines in Asia were directly involved to the Japanese occupation, in the USSR the Germans confiscated the food supplies from the population and blockaded Lenningrad, Greece was occupied by the Axis--Woogie10w (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• I did a cross check at the POPULATION STATISTICS website [10] There was no dramatic decline in the Ruanda population during the war, in fact the population increased. The number does not agree with the population data, I wonder how it may have been derived.

• Newberry compares this famine to another during the 1920,s, not due to WW2.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• • • Newberry also makes a point of stating that "significant" contributions in terms of material were made by Ruanda-Burundi instead of military recruitment. Additionally, the selling of produce at below market prices (in spite of a drought) in order to support industy in the Congo contributed to it. (again on 157-158) The page that would show the source Newberry cites isn't part of the google books preview, but seeing as its a University published work, its most likely been vetted. It may not be a case of occupation, but it is unlikely that there would have been such demand in times of peace. I see it as a case similar to the famine in India. India wasn't occupied, and demand driven policies and disruption contributed to it. Jabberwok2010 (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Also population totals can be misleading. Populstat.info shows an overall increase in India's population for the period in spite of its famine. The same holds true for Vietnam, Greece and the Netherlands. Jabberwok2010 (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't really been able to penetrate this article enough to understand what limits it imposes on itself, but if we are going to mention famine related deaths we will need to include also those that happened in Germany during the military occupation, e.g. roughly half of all newborn dying in Berlin the first year etc. Then we have the victims from the expulsions from eastern Germany and elsewhere where many were so weakened that they died once they arrived in the occupation zones. Then there are the German deaths in the winters 1946/47, and 47/48, where hundreds of thousands of enemy civilians under occupation perished from famine.[11]--Stor stark7 ^Speak 22:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Stor stark, German famine deaths are mentioned read the footnotes on Germany, that range of population up to 6.9 million covers the war related famine.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Stor Stark do you know of reliable sources in German on the 45-46 famine?--Woogie10w (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I ask readers to go to the text on Google Books P157-158 [12]- Newberry does not attribute the famine to the war, she mentions the famine in the context of the policy of that the Belgian colonial administrators followed before the war. The famine was attributed directly to a drought, not as a unique event related to the war. It cannot be compared to famines in areas directly affected by the war in Asia, John W Dower considers the Bengal famine war related. Newberry does not do this, it occurred during the war and was due to a drought and caused by an prior policy of the Belgian colonial administrators.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell the source you cited does not support your argument that the famine was war related,only that it occured during the war in an area not directly affected by the war.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• On Wikipedia; Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources --Woogie10w (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• This page would lose all credibility if it posted Rwanda losing 300,000 in WW2 that is 15.8% of its population of 1,900,000, more than the USSR that lost 14%!!--Woogie10w (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• First, thanks for responding. We'll have to agree to disagree. I think the fact that the author mentions the war in the same stream of thought as the famine indicates that she is tacitly linking the two. As a colony of a participating country, I don't think it is such a stretch that the war had its impact. In any case, I understand why you're making your decision. At least we're debating a new subject rather than rehashing the old ones. Jabberwok2010 (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

In terms of loss of credibility, I'm not sure why anyone would be shocked that a colony of a country at war would suffer as a result. 300,000 dead central Africans doesn't seem any more or less shocking than a million or more Bengalis. I doubt many people with a passing interest in the subject are even aware that countries like Iraq or Thailand were involved in the war, let alone how many they had lost. Even fewer would know that Portuguese Timor may have lost roughly the same percentage of its population as the Soviet Union. Jabberwok2010 (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we cannot use a Synthesis of published material that advances a position, Newberry does not list these deaths as war casualties, that is your interpretation of this passage. We just cannot post 300,000 WW2 deaths in Ruanda 15.8 % of the population. The source makes it clear that the losses were due to drought that caused famine and Belgian colonial policy.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe this material belongs at the History of Rwanda, you could make a contribution at that page where this really belongs. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment on this by Woogie10w, and I agree that unless there's a reliable source which explicitly links these deaths to the war they shouldn't be included in the article (the Google books link doesn't show the relevant pages here in Australia - what's displayed differs from country to country - so I can't comment on the source being discussed here). Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the text of the passage that is being questioned: In the section on Belgian colonial policy Newberry describes the pressures on Rwanda to increase food production in order to assist the Congo's production in the war effort.

In these conditions, people migrated in larger numbers to Uganda, leaving behind (in some areas) mainly old people and children. The prolonged drought, labor migration, “harassing corvees which caused a loss of time” and the “fleau de profiteurs de gurerre” were the key elements in the Ruzagayura famine that struck Ruanda in 1943. Relief supplies from the Congo were not brought in until the end of 1943, during the course of this food crisis, which lasted two years, at least 300,000 people died. Like the Gakwege famine of the 1920’s, the 1943 famine gave rise to intensified impositions on the population.

Source: Cohesion of Oppression: Clientship and Ethnicity in Rwanda, 1860-1960 By Catharine Newbury Page 158

--Woogie10w (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

In the US during WW2 the deaths and injuries in industrial accidents are not counted with war casualties even though the workers were engaged in the war related production, this holds true in other countries where civilian deaths away from combat zones are not treated as war dead. --Woogie10w (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. As no clear link is made between the war itself and the deaths I agree that this is out of scope, though it clearly belongs in the relevant article(s) on Rwanda it it's not already there. Nick-D (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a part that preceded that that was left out on 157:

During World War II the colonial authorities called upon Rwandans to make significant contributions to the war effort. The Conditions of the League of Nations mandate prohibited the recruitment of Africans in the territory for military service. Instead the Belgian Administration required Rwandans to provide cheap food and cows for slaughter to assure supplies for the industrial centers in the Congo where stepped up production was seen as crucial to the war effort

If the author didn't intend the reader to link the war and the famine together, why did she include this particular passage? Jabberwok2010 (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thus far I have operated under the assumption of good faith, and was willing to let the argument drop until others were brought in and shown only part of the segment in dispute. Since you are an American user of Google books, I know you have access to the same pages that I do. To only present half of the data in question to an audience that does not have the same access that we do is misleading. It would seem that you are unwilling to accept input from anyone, and have taken complete contol. This conclusion is backed up by the fact that instead of engaging in a actual debate, you have built your replies around accusations of misconduct on my part. As such, you have fallen short of acting within the guidelines set out by wikipedia. Only having one major editior of a topic this broad, who is unwilling to consider input from others, will ruin this page's credibility far faster than anything I have done. Jabberwok2010 (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have never accused you of misconduct. Your source does not back up your argument that these deaths are war related, an Administrator User:Nick-D pointed out As no clear link is made between the war itself and the deaths I agree that this is out of scope--Woogie10w (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You have accused me of original research and synthesis. I could accuse you of synthesis as well, since you are focusing soley on the one portion that supports your interpretation of it. You have also neglected to show said administrator the whole passage, you only posted the part that supports your argument. I've posted the part that ties the two together. If, after reading the *whole* thing (ie BOTH your paragraph and mine) Nick D or any other neutral admin. agrees with you, then I will cease arguing. Jabberwok2010 (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Previously, I Summarized Newberry's remarks on the WW2 stitution as follows:

In the section on Belgian colonial policy Newberry describes the pressures on Rwanda to increase food production in order to assist the Congo's production in the war effort.

Here is what Newberry actually wrote

During World War II the colonial authorities called upon Rwandans to make significant contributions to the war effort. The Conditions of the League of Nations mandate prohibited the recruitment of Africans in the territory for military service. Instead the Belgian Administration required Rwandans to provide cheap food and cows for slaughter to assure supplies for the industrial centers in the Congo where stepped up production was seen as crucial to the war effort

My statement was an accurate summary of what she said, a factual summary of her remarks--Woogie10w (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)