Talk:World War II casualties of the Soviet Union/Archive 1

Old talk

The exclusive use of "Kirosheev" in quoting is unacceptable, primarily because he stands unopposed AND his figures while being closer to soviet historical standards are very far from internationally accepted, verified and proven levels. In fact he is SO far off as to sow serious doubt about all his results - unless one would make the argument that most modern european historians are frauds...

In general this whole article is almost exclusively based on russian/soviet sources whose objectivity as well as sources I most clearly doubt! Nick-bang (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how you are critisising the author without being even able to spell his name properly, calling vague estimates "proven" (how?), I would suggest to familiarize yourself with the book and its critical reception before going about Wikipedia throwing POV tags left and right. --Illythr (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Grigoriy Krivosheyev's figures are obsolete, even as the official Russian estimates. For example, in 1994 a presidential commission headed by chief of The Military History Institute of Defense Ministry general Dmitry Volcogonov estimated Soviet military losses at 16.3 million with German ones being at 3.9 million. 95.220.138.21 (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, can you give us a reliable source for this? пожалуйста, прочтите этоru:Википедия:Авторитетные источники--Woogie10w (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

These figure were in Russian Wikipedia article "Потери в Великой Отечественной войне" (the Great Patriotic War casualties of the Soviet Union) for years, but disappeared on the eve of VG day of 2013. Mr Dmitry Volkogonov was military historian No. 1 in Russia. And there is no need to remind a historian what sources are of what value. 95.220.138.21 (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

On Wikipedia you need to provide reliable sources that others can verify--Woogie10w (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Here you are: http://www.inosmi.ru/russia/20130509/208835936.html . I don't know, whether one can find the primary Internet source, but general Volkogonov's figures have been cited widely by mass media. Besides, more accurate and the most reliable are the data by Russian historian Igor Ivlev, director of Archangelsk-city State Social Memorial Center "Poisk" of 20,58 million military and 38,5 millon casualties all told: http://www.soldat.ru/news/937.html or No. 76 in the Article. Nobody has dared to doubt, deny or criticize them since their publication in April 2012. 95.220.138.21 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

When and in what published source did Dmitry Volkogonov estimate Soviet military losses at 16.3 million? We need to see these details--Woogie10w (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A glimpse thru the Russian Internet has revealed no original source of this estimate. There was almost no Internet in Russia in 1994. You are more likely to find it in «Volkogonov Collection. Library of Congress Washington DC USA», as his archives are there, not in Russia. But why are his figures so important, if he has also underestimated the real military casualties? 16.3 million military deaths correlate to nothing, as the USSR census gender gaps only are way over 22 million. 176.195.83.157 (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Russian demographers E.M. Andreev, L.E. Darski and T. L. Kharkova (ADK) authored a study of the Soviet population from 1922-1991 which was published by the Russian Academy of Science, the study did not dispute Krivoshev's report. However according to the study from mid 1941-1945 there were 26.6 million war dead, 20.1 million males and 6.6 million females, a difference of 13.5 million more male deaths. In mid 1941 there were 8.3 million more females in the Soviet population, by 1946 this gap was 22.8 million more females than males, an increase of 13.5 million--Woogie10w (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• If you insist on reliable sources, apply to the population sensuses themselves or read the Russian demographers more carefully. Under 1939 census, women from 1886 to 1927 years of birth (draft age and 5 years older of males also partially enrolled into military services) outnumbered men by 3,421,530. Under electorate census of February 10, 1946 this gap was 26,763,470. Where have all the 22,763,470 soldiers gone? Here you can see it on Table 22 http://www.soldat.ru/news/937.html . This comparison is not 100 per cent accurate, as the USSR in 1946 borders differs from those of 1939. But there were female military losses too to offset the difference. Besides, there is nothing more secret in Russia, than war casualties. 176.195.249.72 (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

English Wikipedia is not going to become a soapbox used to promote the book of Igor Ivlev. Ivlev,s book is mentioned in the article along with other critics of the official figures. Ivlev is not a widely known and recognized as a reliable source in Russia today, in fact on Russian Wikipedia they deleted the plug for Ivlev,s book in the lede paragraph. You are wasting your time here pal, you need to convince the editors over on Russian Wikipedia if you want to promote the book of Igor Ivlev--Woogie10w (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I do not rely on any opinion, either of general Krivosheyev, or of Igor Ivlev. I only try to use the documents contained in various books for my own conclusions. Or while being a historian I can do it without any other historian. For example, there were 53.22 million men of draft age from 13 to 49 on January 1941 (with the new territories), under census of 1959 there were 26.98 million men from 33 to 69. You can deduct youself the second figure from the first one to get the result of 26.24 million less than on the eve of the war. One may deduct several more millions due to higher mortality of men, some of war injures, emigration of some POWs. Anyway, the question still remains: "Where have all the 20-22 million soldiers gone, if not to the graveyards everyone?" Oh, when will you ever learn? You can find almost the same calculation in the first paragraph of Talk to the Russian article "Потери в Великой Отечественной войне", performed by an odinary reader. 176.195.249.72 (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You wrote I only try to use the documents contained in various books for my own conclusions. Here on Wikipedia we edit articles using reliable published sources. I suggest that you use these documents contained in various books to write your own book. We do not allow original research here on Wikipedia. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to misinterpret the definition "historical source". These are documents, interviews of various participants, statistics, memoirs... And no books of any other historian are of any predetermined value, but the documents attached. In this regard it is the same thing, as criminalistics. The sources beet any opinion regardless of your "likes and dislikes". 95.220.140.235 (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The article does give adequate coverage to these critics of Krivosheev. However English Wikipedia is not going to become a forum to promote the writings of the critics of Krivosheev as being correct, we have a policy on Wikipedia to maintain aneutral point of view and air both sides of the argument.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Krivoseyev's writing were based on one unreliable source only, i.e. regular 10-day reports from various military units and they grossly conflict the main sources, such as population censuses, electorate statistics, the Communist party and the Young Communist League membership databases, number of death and missing in action notifications and unclaimed deposits... All of these sources reveal military losses exceeding those of Krivosheev's report by 2 — 2.5 times.. Let alone official figures by general Volkogonov's presidential commission (of 16.3 million) and those of The Soviet Military Encyclopedia of 1976 with only killed servicemen estimated at 17.1 million. Are you still sure you can bank on general Krivosheyev's show-offy estimates? 95.220.140.235 (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

English Wikipedia is not going to become a soapbox to promote the critics of Krivosheev. --Woogie10w (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

By the Way I just checked over at Russian Wikipedia they also have not allowed the page ru:Потери в Великой Отечественной войне to become a soapbox to promote the critics of Krivosheev--Woogie10w (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't have too. English Wikipedia is already a soapbox to promote a tipical Kremlin's fraud, which conflicts each serious source on Soviet WWII military casualties. The Russian one has a good explanation of what is what, which is sapienti sat (enough for a clever reader). But how on earth could The Soviet Military Encyclopedia ("Советская военная энциклопедия") of 1976 critisize general Krivosheyev's book of 1993? 176.195.185.138 (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I just looked at Russian wikipedia, they support Krivosheev's report. Also in 1976 the official figure was 10 million military dead and 10 milion civilians. Plese tell me Vol and page nr. of Советская военная энциклопедия") I want to verify your claim.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

See Chapter 15 of "Советская военная энциклопедия". There is a great difference between Russian and Western audiences. The Russian audience expects nothing from the court historians, but myths and frauds. That is why it is more likely to trust the alternative sources of information. Then, Russian readers can easily verify such frauds by taking a calculator and two of tree population censuses. You can see it in the first paragraph of Talk to ru:Потери в Великой Отечественной войне. The Western audience is more likely to trust even official publications of the so called New Russia and besides Russian statistics are not so easy to get hold of in the West. Obviously general Krivosheyev has flunked its exam in Russia, a fact to be understood in the West as well. You'll see it very soon. 176.195.185.138 (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

But you don't think there are no supporters for Kremlin's war tales like that by general Krivosheyev. There are undercover Internet commentators "Kremlebots" paid by the government 85 rubles per post to sway public opinion http://уря.рф/%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%82 . Now a “kremlebot” is anyone who actively and publicly posts opinions online that defend or support government policy — in history as well. They delete right away any text of Wikipedia not in the line with the offical policy. 176.195.11.219 (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

No thanks, I dont take money to edit. --Woogie10w (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I have edited the beginning very neutrally, as nobody disputes the highly patriotic death toll of the Party and the YCL members from numerous Soviet publications:

World War II casualties of the Soviet Union from all related causes were commonly estimated in excess of 20,000,000, both civilians and military, although the statistics vary to a great extent. The most reliable figures of military dead from the official primary sources only is the number of the Communist party and The Young Communist League members calculated as 7 million. The share of communists and young communists kept increasing from slightly over 25 per cent in January 1942 to 40 per cent by the end of the war, but the average percentage did not exceed 35. That makes the total military irreparable losses toll about 20 million killed at the battlefields, in concentration camps or emigrated to the West after liberation. Unlike the party and its younger detachment's personal records, those of soldiers drafted before and during the war were reportedly destroyed under a secret order of The Soviet Defense Ministry soon after Stalin’s death in 1953 and most war draft related documents are still classified. The current assessment by Russian Government is that total losses were 26.6 million both civilians and military, with military dead being at 8.7 million, as if only 1.7 million were not communists or the YCL members. That is just one reason why the official figures have been disputed by all independent researchers in Russia. This article covers the details of the Russian government analysis as well as a presentation of sources disputing the official figures.

But somebody has deleted the whole text. Is there a "kremlebot" among this article's watchdogs? 176.195.191.183 (talk) 06:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Cogratulations! The Russian Wikipedia article has completely exposed general Krivosheyev's writings as fraudulent from A to Я. Why does the English Wikipedia still keep them as the cornerstone? 176.195.191.183 (talk) 06:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Shortened Causes section

The Causes section in this article used to contain a little more detail. What was the reasoning behind its shortening? 222.153.228.218 (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Causes

• There were partizans in 1939-1940 Poland (Henryk Dobrzański) but because of the German terror the Polish leaders opposed them.
• Soviet leaders instigated cruel partizan war knowing the results. Xx236 (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Give us sources--Woogie10w (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Woogie, I bet you know hundreds of them.Xx236 (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Soviet partisans in Poland quotes sources.Xx236 (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

ru:Советские партизаны в Великой Отечественной войне#Отношения с гражданским населением Xx236 (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

http://kamunikat.fontel.net/www/knizki/historia/miranovicz/histbialorusi/historia_06.htm - Belarus POV.Xx236 (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=31597 Xx236 (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

German policy was basically the same in Poland and the USSR. Hostages were shot in reprisals for Germans killed by the resistance. Babi Yar and the Wola Massacre were examples of this Nazi policy. --Woogie10w (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Babi Yar was a Holocaust massacre.
2. Wola Massacre was a (crazy) revange to the uprizing. Germans lacked brains to create a Western fort in the East.
   1. There are hundreds of Polish books accusing Polish commanders because of the Uprising in general and Wola Massacre in detail.
   2. There are only few Russian academic books criticizing Soviet rulers.
   3. Many cases of Soviet strategy and tactics were of the Warsaw Uprising type - the difference was that the Soviets had much bigger assets and less critical historians. Xx236 (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on your remarks I get the impression that you are saying that the Soviets initiated the partisan war and the Nazis were engaged in a legitimate military campaign. In other the Soviets are responsible for the millions of civilian deaths because they engaged in a unjustified campaign of resistance. However in Poland the AK was engaged in a legitimate military campaign of resistance and the Nazis are responsible for civilian deaths because they engaged in a unjustified campaign of terror. Is this what you want to tell readers of this article? BTW the United States encouraged and aided the Philippine resistance against Japan. --Woogie10w (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• I hope your government is sorry regarding the Philippine victims?
• The AK was an army which prepared the war (Akcja Burza), produced arms, collected informations for British allies (who transferred them to Soviets, who later used the informations against Poles). Military actions of the AK were limited because of their price.
• The Soviets didn't care about millions according to the sentence We have many people. The destruction of infrastructure caused direct civilian looses and German revange. The same (overestimated) partisan actions. Xx236 (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• The subjects are very difficult but one is sure - don't believe Soviet historiography.Xx236 (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• My government is not sorry regarding the Philippine victims, in fact we put the Japanese on trial for the war crimes committed in the Philippine's. Check out Manila massacre

• Here is and example of what really happened. case 1-I knew a woman from Minsk, a Jew. She said her mother escaped from the city and was in hiding, see saw in the distance the mass murder of Jews by the Nazis, she joined the partisans and survived the war. Case 2-I know a old Pole from Lozma, his father was one of 100 hostages shot by the Nazis because a German was killed. The Nazis later knocked on the door to apologize to his mother because they had already apprehended the killer, another German policeman!!--Woogie10w (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The difference was that the US had Philipinese to die and the Soviets had only their own Belarusians. It's interesting how many partizans would fight in occupied USA.

It's logical that peopple survived in partisan troops (robbing the peasants). Military results were limited.

The Communists murdered about 100 000 of ethnic Poles before the war, about 100 000 1939-1941 and 50 000 1944-1956. The sum of 250 000 is much less than Germans did but too many to be grateful. Xx236 (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Source misrepresented

This edit [1] attempted to use the ADK study Demographic History of Russia 1927–1959 to POV push the argument that Russian military losses were 22.8 million. This study is available online. Please note that we can easily verify with Google translate. See Chapter 7 [2] ADK did not make the argument that the 1946 election results put military losses at 22.8 million. They in fact found the 1946 election lists to be unreliable. The edit made by IP 176.195.169.200 was a synthesis making a POV push that is not supported by the ADK study. --Woogie10w (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

To Fix this problem I made a series of edits to make it clear that the table showing military losses was the work of Igor Ilev not ADK. Also that ADK did not put military losses at 22.8 million. ADK found the 1946 voters lists to be unreliable.-

1-The table by Igor Ilev is still in the article under his name not ADK.

2-The analysis by ADK of the 1946 voters lists is in the ADK section.

Please take the time to read Chap 7 of Demographic History of Russia 1927–1959 [3]

--Woogie10w (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for the online text of ADK studies! "ADK did not make the argument that the 1946 election results put military losses at 22.8 million". I am of the same opinion. Nobody has said that. It is only a suggestion that the 1946 voters lists did not include 6.4 million persons allegedly deprived of their rights, in prison or in exile, due to falsifications mainly in the Central Asia. An international historical and civil rights society Memorial knows of only 4 million persons deprived of their rights to vote from mid twenties to 1953, see ВП Сталин, Иосиф Висарионович. ADK also noted that there was a overestimation of women of older ages because persons in rural areas without internal passports sought to avoid compulsory heavy labor by adding years of age [45] In any case the gap mentioned did not include the 7 million surplus of males of draft age from the new territories aquired in 1939-1940. This surplus alone can offset any miscalculations by the authorities in the 1946 elections. Even though there was a pre-war emigration of 0,3 million Germans, and a war-time emigration of Ucranians (presumably largely in a forsed labor army) and Moldavians... 176.195.224.57 (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Iglev includes the 8.5 million already in his figure of 18 million civilians.

Величина потерь гражданского населения складывается следующим образом. Итоговый Акт Чрезвычайной Государственной комиссии по установлению и расследованию злодеяний немецко-фашистских захватчиков от 1 марта 1946 г. утверждает о гибели в оккупации 6074957 чел. и от голода в блокадном Ленинграде 641803 чел., всего 6716760 чел. Оценка современных историков количества умерших от голода, болезней, трудных условий жизни, боевого воздействия противника и наших войск вместе с естественной убылью по возрасту - не менее 8,5 млн чел. Около 2,7 млн чел. погибло на работах в Германии и оккупированных ею территориях за пределами СССР. Всего почти 18 млн чел. --Woogie10w (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Ivlev includes the 8.5 million already in his figure of 18 million civilians." It is not Ivlev, it's not his research, nor 17,92 million of dead civilians are his figures. Both belong to demographers, who have authored the respective article in "Социологические исследования", 1991, № 12, с. 10. Ivlev has just used this source, as it is. Krivosheev has added 11,9 more million to 8,5 million already included, making the whole figure of deaths by natural causes as much as 20,4, as "боевое воздействия противника и наших войск" was insignificant outside Leningrad. Germany had no devastating B-29 class bombers at all to inflict the allied scale losses to Russia. They were thought to be useless in "blitzkriegs". Source is really misrepresented. 95.220.149.82 (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The article in "Социологические исследования", 1991, № 12, с. 10 did not mention the total estimated losses nor did they give a figure for military losses. However Iglev does give the same figure as ADK for population in 1941 of 196.7 million and the ending population of 159.5 million, for a loss of 37.2 million, the same figure as ADK. Iglev tells us the entire 37.2 million are war dead- THERE ARE NO NATURAL DEATHS-ALL DIE AS THE RESULT OF THE WAR.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• You don't have to edit your partner's arguments. It becomes difficult to follow the discussion. If Ivlev acknowleges that within 17.92 million of civilian deaths there are 8.5 million with deaths by natural causes as well, he just accepts the POV of demographers who have authered these figures. And 38,5 million of total losses is the common figure for those who counts from population in June 1941 being 196,700,000, as both Krivosheev and Ivlev. There is also another figure of 200,100,000 also well justified. It brings quite different results in demographic research. 95.220.140.100 (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The article in "Социологические исследования", 1991, № 12, с. 10 is clear that the 8.5 million deaths are due to war related famine and disese on occupied territory. The people who died of old age in Moscow or Siberia are not included in the figure. --Woogie10w (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

We cannot use Wikipedia as a source Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source--Woogie10w (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Corrected.

Reading between the lines is a unique skill. I am glad you have it. I can't do it and I am afraid the majority of WP readers don't have this capacity. 95.220.150.232 (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

У меня золотые руки--Woogie10w (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Only blind persons read with their hands.

For those who read Russian-[4]--Woogie10w (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Спасибо! 95.220.150.232 (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we must maintain a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. This is difficult on English Wikipedia when dealing with the topic of World War II casualties of the Soviet Union because most reliable sources in English accept Krivosheev as being correct. So Krivosheev's analysis must be presented and compared to his critics in Russia. Let the readers of English Wikipedia decide for themselves if Krivosheev is right or wrong based on the sources. In any case outside of Wikipedia my opinion is that Krivosheev's numbers are as soft as shit.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Do you happen to have the new book "Умылись кровью"? There is a review of 217 pages on Krivosheev's books by Lev Lopoukhovsky and Boris Kavalerchik. They have found so many frauds, hoaxes, falsifications and discrepancies that only a sheer enumeration of them would make 10 articles of the present syze. The good for nothing Soviet generals (former non-commissioned officers of WWI) became jealous with their predecessors in the imperial army who had managed to have equal (1:1) losses with their WWI enemies. The 8.7 million figure had been launched years before Krivosheev's books. The task of Krivosheev's group was to justify this figure by any means. His latest "success" is 1,1:1 with the Germans by further falsification of their war casualties. But neither Putin, nor Medvedev and Eltsin have dared to approuve this fantasy. So, these are not Russian government figures.

After the speech, Putin downed the customary 100 grams of vodka, the daily ration issued to Red Army soldiers during the war. The Russian Government currently estimates that 26.6 million Russians lost their lives in "The Great Patriotic War," counting both civilians and military. [5]--Woogie10w (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

There is also a professional German review of Krivosheev by Alexander Bayerbach in Russian - http://www.solonin.org/other_a-bayerbah-grif-sekretnosti . You may enjoy it. Krivosheev's "research" has also become a laughing stock of the Russian Internet community - http://poteri-sssr.livejournal.com/16158.html. It's only one example. Въ 95.220.150.232 (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I corrected the math per ADK- They have 11.9 million natural deaths. 20.4 million does not appear in ADK!!!--Woogie10w (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see chap 8 of ADK on line at demoscope[6]--Woogie10w (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The Russian text of ADK re natural deaths of 11.9 million Общее число умерших или оказавшихся за пределами страны за рассматриваемый период из числа родившихся до 22 июня 1941 г. составляет таким образом, 37,2 млн человек. Однако вся эта численность не может быть, конечно, отнесена к людским потерям, так как и в мирное время за 4,5 года умерла бы некоторая часть живущих. Наш бы возрастные коэф-фициенты смертности населения СССР в 1941-1945 гг. оставались такими же, как в предвоенном 1940 г., то число умерших за четыре с половиной года составило бы 11,9 млн человек. Таким образом, людские потери этих поколений составляют в общей сложности 25,3 млн человек (37,2 млн ~ 11,9 млн).--Woogie10w (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• As for 26.6 million, the figure keeps being repeated on each VG day, but not the ridiculous 8.7. The generals insisted that Medvedev sound it out in 2010, but he refused. Should ADK be honest... 20.4 million is the sum of earlier acknowledged 8.5 and Krivosheev's 11.9, if no reading between the lines is being employed. Dr.of history Victor Zemskov has dug out a figure of "a real death toll of 1940". It is 4.2 million with some Winter war casualties. But his figure of civilian losses in the GPW is only 4.5 million. 95.220.155.235 (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Dr.of history Victor Zemskov puts war dead at 16 million (11.5 million military and 4.5 million civilians [7]--Woogie10w (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Victor Zemskov's figures make sense, in fact my own calculations off Wikipedia tend to agree with his estimates. The Russian government needs to show the people the original source documents used by Krivosheev, ADK and the 1946 commission.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Question for you. On the Russian internet is there information on the decision making process that came up with the figures of 8.7 and 26.6? I assume that there was a meeting that discussed Krivosheev, ADK, A.A. Shevyakov and Ministry of Defence archive with the 14 million names of war dead. Somebody had to decide on the cover story that would be told, accountants would have been involved in the process of reconciling the numbers of the different sources. Was there a person involved in the secret decision making process that has given an honest account? Another question for you, what can you tell me about the General Staff study on casualties from the 1960's that Krivosheev used for his study?--Woogie10w (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• The first research group of the General Staff has reportedly counted over 30 million of military casualties. But the above commanders have not accepted this figure as too big, and a new group has been formed. This story of mid 1960's comes from memoirs of Feodor Setin a retired colonel and former staff oficer of the Central Defense Ministry Archive. See http://modernlib.ru/books/boris_vadimovich_sokolov/kto_voeval_chislom_a_kto__umeniem_chudovischnaya_pravda_o_poteryah_sssr_vo_vtoroy_mirovoy/read/ . The story has initially appeared in the following book - Дугас И.А., Черон Ф.Я. Вычеркнутые из памяти. Советские военнопленные между Гитлером и Сталиным. Париж: YMCA-Press, 1994. С. 405, 402–403. There was a next group to write the acceptable figures. You can find the whole story in the book "Умылись кровью"... Do you have it? If not, I can make a resume of this story. 95.220.142.173 (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. You have been very helpful. Lets see if we can improve the article in the future. Please consider joining Wikipedia

I only hope that historians in the English speaking world who read Russian will check the sources in this article that point out the problems with Krivosheev's numbers. These experts often criticize Wikipedia as being unreliable, I only ask them to check the sources listed here before they accept Krivosheev as the gospel truth. Also I ask the experts to put the ADK figures on an Excel spreadsheet before they accept his figure of 26.6 million war dead as being the gospel truth. The experts will discover that Krivosheev's numbers are too low and ADK is too high. On Wikipedia we can only post information from reliable sources, the readers must be allowed to make their own judgments if these sources are in conflict.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• The biggest national minorities of the USSR claim to have lost 10,387,690 as military casualties mostly in their Memory Books (see the Article). All of them disregard the so called official list. There seem to be some overlaps, as Armenians count themselves not only in their republic, but in Azerbaidzhan and Georgia, as well. So, they may be included in the death tolls of those republics too. Russians claim to have two thirds of the total Soviet military death toll. 95.220.134.82 (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is where you can find answers to your questions on secret decision making process — http://podelise.ru/docs/89408/index-221.html . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.195.234.202 (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, now I have a better understanding of what happened. First they took the military losses of 8.7 mil from the general staff report on the shelf, they then estimated a demographic loss of 27 million based on estimates made in 1988-89. The balance were civilian losses.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think ADK were in Krivosheev's team of history falsifiers. That is why they were the first to open the secret 1939 census results. That is why they regard the electorate list of 1946 elections incomplete and think out 6.4 million "missing young men" and election forgers. At that time authorities hunted for each voter in the USSR and abroad. And no forgers were needed, unless the Bolsheviks wanted to obtain 120 per cent of electorate instead of 99,99. In fact since 1936 voting had turned into an honorable duty and only mentally sick and remand prisoners under investigation (several hundred thousand persons) did not vote. Въ 176.195.234.202 (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I am a retired accountant with over thirty years of experience. I have a good idea of what they did, their numbers game is clear to me. However on Wikipedia I cannot post my original research, only what the published sources tell us. --Woogie10w (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is how to make Krivosheev's team unmask themselves — http://podelise.ru/docs/89408/index-221.html without calculations by the critics. Въ 176.195.234.202 (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

What Reveals Competition Among Nations?

There is a certain competition between nations of the former USSR. Each nation boasts to contribute more military casualties to the common victory. Former Soviet republics outside Russia claim to have contributed 9.5 million dead servicemen. All figures are official with names of each soldier or officer and are supported either by the so called Memory Books or by well known historians. President Putin puts the Russian Federation's death toll at 70 per cent of the total — http://fablewar.ru/2011/11/vklad . If 9.5 million make only 30 per cent, the total is 31.17 million. What do you think of that sum?

You have cited: "After the speech, Putin downed the customary 100 grams of vodka, the daily ration issued to Red Army soldiers during the war. The Russian Government currently estimates that 26.6 million Russians lost their lives in "The Great Patriotic War," counting both civilians and military".

Are you sure the President has limited himself to only 100 grams of vodka? If he has, he has also changed the whole picture. If the Russian Federation's death toll is 70 per cent of the total, the total is 38 million without any Deaths by natural causes. Въ 95.220.162.22 (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we can only post what the sources tell us. We cannot cherrypick different sources, then add the numbers to come up with our own total. --Woogie10w (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• In this case we have picked up official sources only. It's not our fault they conflict with the Russian General Staff's figures. In fact the other way around the Russian General Staff's figures conflict with everything else. Putin and Yanukovych are much more official and solid. If we pretend to be historians, we should crosscheck and check out conflicting sources before publishing. Въ 95.220.162.22 (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

In this case in the current article we have picked up the official sources and their critics. Iglev's arguments have been presented here as well as Krivosheev.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• I hope you don't think, there is anything more official, than presidents' statements? There was a conflict with the Ukraine after Putin's "70 per cent". It is not an Ivlev's story, but one taken directly from political life of the CIS. By arguing what country has made the biggest contribution to VG by sacrificing more of it's citizens' lives, the politicians themselves discard Krivosheev's manipulations and reveal top secrets of their military commanders. 95.220.162.22 (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The statements of these politicians are on the page. There is no conflict here.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• The politicians have raised the Soviet military death toll alone to way over 30 million. But we are not supposed to add A to B, are we? Въ 176.195.224.82 (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Please Read Wikipedia:No original research

On wikipedia we cannot combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Let the readers themselves add A to B. We can provide both. Въ 176.195.224.82 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

We can do that, in fact I have been pointing them in that direction. --Woogie10w (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

--Woogie10w (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead section

I edited the lede to give the article a neutral point of view. The lede section of the article should summarize its contents. It should not be used to promote a single point of view regarding the topic. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section --Woogie10w (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• You have also deleted some facts. Facts are neutral by their nature. Are we going to feed Western historians largely by Soviet myths? But even their authors do not regard them official. See general of the Army Makhmut Gareev about that in the above mentioned review by Lopukhovsky and Kavalerchik. http://podelise.ru/docs/89408/index-221.html . Въ 176.195.34.145 (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

in the Battle of Moscow== Sources Needed ==

Please provide WP:RS reliable published sources to support these edits:

The Russian General Staff insisted that the government declare the figure of 8.7 million military dead official on the VG day of 2010, but the government refused

• You can read the whole story on general A.Kirilin's request of May 5, 2010 via RIA Novosti that President Medvedev announce 8.7 figure on the VG day on pp. 133-134 of "Умылись кровью" or here http://podelise.ru/docs/89408/index-221.html

the official database of the Central Defense Ministry Archive (CDMA) covers not more than 70 per cent of the pre-war and war time drafts

• ..."Из приблизительно 5000 опознанных в 1994–1995 (from those years on) годах погибших бойцов почти треть не числилась в архивах Министерства обороны"... http://www.vokrugsveta.ru/vs/article/7441/

"From those years on" up till now from one excavation to another the Central Defense Ministry Archive (CDMA) confirms not more than 70 per cent of identified corpses. More than 30 per cent are not registered. And very few are identified. 5,000 identified mean that about 45,000 are not. Up to November 1941 the soldiers kept on them special capsules with their names and whereabouts, but later those were replaced by paper Red Army soldier's card not designed for a long storage. 1/3 of 5,000 is a small sample from one location and cannot be used to estimate total losses in the war. --Woogie10w (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

"From those years on" up till now from excavations to excavations, wherever they occur the Central Defense Ministry Archive (CDMA) confirms not more than 70 per cent of identified corpses. More than 30 per cent are not registered. And very few are identified. 5,000 identified mean that about 40,000 are not. Up to November 1941 the soldiers kept on them special capsules with their names and whereabouts, but later those were replaced by paper Red Army soldier's card not designed for a long storage. Въ 176.195.43.200 (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to provide a reliable source for the above statement.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• After that article in Vokrug Sveta monthly I kept track of all military excavation news one by one. The statistics keeps the same 70 : 30 ratio year after year. It's very stable. It is impossible to provide links to all these news. They have dug out about 250,000 remains. The number in the magazine is really representative. In the same article the archaeologists also say that the casualties ratio with the Germans is 8 to 1. Въ 176.195.177.138 (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

In other words you have no source to support the figure of 70%. It does not belong on Wikipedia--Woogie10w (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• 40,000 out of 250,000 make a representative figure of 1/6. My wife is a pro-sociologist. They are operating with drastically smaller percentages. So, the Vokrug Sveta figure must be considered representative. You may consult another sociologist on the matter. Въ 95.220.173.59 (talk) 08:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Who is Boris Kavalercik? what is his background? what historical material has he published?--Woogie10w (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Кавалерчик Борис Константинович has authored many books on the GPW, but I know nothing about his scientific degrees. The books may be found in Yandex.ru or Google.ru search engines. Въ 176.195.34.145 (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• You keep editing the true story of Krivosheev's Analysis into somebody's wishfull thinking (not yours). Why? If he has really done that let the readers know it. I have added review of his sources (field reports) by two solid historians. Any work on history begins with a review of the main sources. Въ 176.195.177.138 (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd note that the core policy WP:BLP very much applies to commentary on individuals scholarship, and the continued addition of poorly sourced material on this topic will lead to me blocking the editor(s) involved. It's not OK to use Wikipedia to attack people, and all material added which relates directly to living people needs to be supported by high quality references. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am glad to meet a fellow-specialist in source studies. What edits to your opinion are poorly sourced? As for the authors present in the article, I know only one criticized for being poorly sourced. A German researcher Alexander Bayerbach criticizes Krivosheev for the lack of references to his sources, or for the sources being unattainable, if given. His article in Russian is here - http://www.solonin.org/other_a-bayerbah-grif-sekretnosti . As for WP:BLP, history is alive, if there is a competition of authors and ideas. Critical reviews of any work supported by high quality references are the engines for this science. Nothing personal. Historians are criticized alive and dead. It's just the fate of everybody devoted to this science. And they choose this fate themselves. Въ 95.220.226.216 (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Please Read WP:SPS. You cited a self published webpage which is not a reliable source. I checked Bayerbach, Alexander on World Cat, Bayerbach was not listed as an author.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. --Woogie10w (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for warning! I do not regard it as a source, just an opinion and I have never proposed it into the article. There must be some differencies between the article and its discussion. Въ 95.220.159.189 (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, do you happen to know that for the Russian readers "Russian government sources" is a synonym of untrustwothy sources? So big is the trust to anything coming from the government. Въ 176.195.189.202 (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• What is World Cat? It was not Alexander Bayerbach's site, but that of a Russian military historian Mark Solonin. After his article Alexander Bayerbach was quite active on a forum devoted to his article - http://www.solonin.org/other_a-bayerbah-grif-sekretnosti/cmnts. Do you think it was Mr. Solonin playing in Mr. Bayerbach? Въ 176.195.205.167 (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

World Cat Find what you want in a library near you with WorldCat, a global catalog of library collections. [8] Please Read WP:SPS. You cited a self published webpage which is not a reliable source--Woogie10w (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• We are allies in this WWII. So, why no teamwork? Why should you delete my edits on the real events around Krivjsheev's writings? What official figures are you talking about in the country with 108 different history manuals? Why don't you trust general Makhmut Gareev, who has co-authored the initial report of the Gereral Staff, or the Zvezda TV, that had to broadcast the real Soviet casualties multiplying by 12 those by Krivosheev? If Mr. Gareev doesn't regard Krivosheev's report official, we have to honor his opinion, because he is really in the know... May be you also share the Russian attitude: everything official is fraudulent, don't you? Why don't you edit concoctions on famine in the best Soviet breadbaskets? I don't understand anything. Въ 95.220.233.135 (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

пожалуйста, прочтите это ru: Википедия:Авторитетные источники --Woogie10w (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ну, если дискутировать по-русски, то Ваша отсылка к ВП:АИ совсем не катит. Учить историка и журналиста работе с источниками все равно, что мне Вас — бухучету. Источниковедение изучал целый год на спецсеминаре, потом с критики источников начинал всякое исследование. А в журналистике за ошибки можно получить и судебные иски. Это кто по-вашему не авторитетный, Махмут Гареев что ли? Так он — один из авторов той лабуды Генштаба СССР, под которую подгоняли затем свои исследования Кривошеев и Ко. А документальный фильм ТВ "Звезда" (кстати, это официальный канал Вооруженных Сил РФ) сделан с участием полудюжины известных военных историков. Иными словами, само Минобороны РФ не рассматривает творения Кривошеева как gospel truth и спокойно их дезавуирует. Книгу "Умылись кровью..." мы уже включили в статью, как АИ. А вот голод в самых сытых районах страны, как Закавказье и Средняя Азия, даже во время войны — сказка про белого бычка. И никакого АИ на сей счет нет и в помине. Не АИ и сам автор этих небылиц независимый журналист Вадим Эрликман, который ради гонораров, судя по всему, готов хвататься за любую даже неведомую ему тему. В общем, он дискредитирует всю статью.

Кстати, по предыдущей теме. 5,000 опознанных поисковиками в 90-е годы воинских останков — это примерно четверть общего числа опознанных за всю историю советского и российского поискового движения. Четверть репрезентативна по любым меркам. Въ 176.195.226.125 (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Насчет голода в Закавказье

Рубль в годы Великой Отечественной войны

Серьёзно отличалась обеспеченность населения продовольствием по регионам. Если деревни Украины, Белоруссии и Центральной России бедствовали и голодали, то в Закавказье уровень жизни практически не изменился. Переводчик Иосифа Сталина Валентин Бережков, добираясь на Тегеранскую конференцию, был поражен продовольственным изобилием в азербайджанской столице. В ресторане можно было без карточек заказать шашлык, различные закуски и прочие блюда из объемистого меню. Метрдотель объяснил причину этого изобилия тем, что транспортные трудности не позволяют вывезти из Закавказья продовольственные товары, хранить их долго нельзя, поэтому в ресторанах все без карточек. По его словам, сравнительно недорогие товары и на колхозном рынке. Население Южного Кавказа недостатка в продовольствии в годы войны не испытывало. Возможно, это и преувеличено, но факт остается фактом – в Закавказье нехватка продуктов питания была менее ощутимой, и цены на рынках были ниже, чем в других областях Советского Союза. Это АИ!

В Средней Азии обеспеченность продовольствием была еще лучше. Недаром туда уехали миллионы эвакуированных. Въ 176.195.93.100 (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hear you can find some interesting discussions on how ADH have made a demographic cornerstone for Krivosheev &Co.

"В общем объеме людских потерь более 76%, или 20,0 млн, приходится на мужчин (см. табл. 35). Наиболее пострадали поколения мужчин, родившихся в 1901 — 1931 гг.: из общей величины потерь на их долю приходится более 55%, или 10 млн, преждевременно прерванных жизней."

Вот эта фраза из АДХ - либо сознательная ложь, чтобы ввести в заблуждение, либо слишком уж грубая ошибка.

По их же данным из таблицы 35 этот абзац должен был выглядеть так:

"В общем объеме людских потерь более 76% 75,4%, или 20,0 20,05 млн, приходится на мужчин (см. табл. 35). Наиболее пострадали поколения мужчин, родившихся в 1901 — 1931 1930 гг.: из общей величины потерь на их долю приходится более 55% 55,8%, или 10 14,85 млн, преждевременно прерванных жизней."

So, ADH have hiden 4,85 million male casualties in the 15—44 years of age group. As an accountant you can check it better than me. http://poteri-sssr.livejournal.com/14382.html Въ 176.195.27.89 (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read -Wikipedia:No original research -ru:Википедия:Недопустимость оригинальных исследований These are the rules of the road(Дорожное движение) here on Wikipedia--Woogie10w (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• It's not a research at all, but a deliberate miscalculation by ADK. Having obviously been paid for their support to Krivosheev, they are covertly ridiculing the general and his collegues. As for the Road Rules, they stipulate, that you are not supposed to miscalculate your distance on a road:-) Kindly read your Road Rules. They must be the same in this respect, as we follow here in Europe. Въ 176.195.2.126 (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• 23 years of work in the CDMA come from Ivlev's own e-mail of August 20, 2013, but Kavalerchik and Lopukhovsky have also confirmed his working at the CDMA as a representative of ELAR corporation, that is digitizing two databases there: "Memorial" and "People's Heroism" http://podelise.ru/docs/89408/index-221.html?page=3 Въ. 95.220.175.131 (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• A song on driving Russian style . You can read it or listen to it. Въ 176.195.53.76 (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Why should you deny the right to revise official history to general Krivosheev? He did it, anyway!

Historical revisionism in Russia

The initial official figures of the Soviet war losses appeared in the Soviet Union and the first author to have revised them in the new Russia was general Krivosheev.

• Grigoriy Krivoshhev. Just two examples of the general's revisionism. There are official Soviet figures of military casualties in 1941, i.e. 5,3 million dead, captured and missing. Later general Krivosheev diminished them by more than two million to 3,137,673 without any reasons or explanations given. The Extraordinary State Commission has revealed 3,912,283 Soviet POWs killed by the Germans in the USSR alone, yet Krivosheev insists on only 2,5 million obviously conflicting with his own step by step calculations which reveal 239,100 POWs dead. Въ 95.220.239.145 (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• The POW section of our main author consists of so many hoaxes and tricks, that he is sure to get drowned in this swamp. Do not pull him out by his last hairs. Въ 176.195.210.205 (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The figure of 1,836,000 liberated POW

The figure of 1,836,000 liberated includes the 823,000 released by Germany The Germans also held 900,000 Soviet POW in 1945!!!--Woogie10w (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• But they do know history. Leave history to historians. Who has told you that 823,200 liberated on Soviet territory before May 1, 1944needed repariation? Besides, Streit has his own statistics. He doesn't know whereabouts of 500,00o POWs and at least 200,000 POWs were held by Romania and Finland. My uncle worked as a POW on a steamboat in Austria. He had to pass thru repariation units. Those in the Ukraine did not need it. Въ 176.195.49.95 (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Article semi-protected

As previous periods of semi-protection and the warning I posted on 29 July have not stopped the stready stream of serious attacks on Krivoshhev referenced to dubious or no references, I've decided to semi-protect this article for a six month period. While it's obviously OK to include reliable/notable critiques of Krivoshhev's analysis, the material which keeps being posted amounts to serious attacks on his scholarly practices which are not referenced to strong citations, and as such are a clear violation of WP:BLP. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• It is a detrimental decision to the content. You have not yet produced a single example of dubious or no references edits to make it.

Kindly give us such, if you have noticed any. We cooperate fruitfully enough with Woogie10w and I make all references he requires as an experienced WP editor. All critics of Krivosheev are well known historians with many books and articles published. There are no reasons to suspect them of being laymen or dishonest. Въ 176.195.49.95 (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Examples would be the 'Historical revisionism in Russia' and 'Source misrepresented' threads above, and stuff like this, this and this, which is a direct continuation of older BLP violations such as this, this and this. Nick-D (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Nick has cited examples of how Krivosheev was misrepresented. As editors we must present the sources from a neutral point of view. For the past four months the annonymous user in Russia has edit warred in an attempt to turn the article into an attack on Krivosheev using fringe historians in Russia, the source cited for these POV attacks is dubious [9], I question its reliability. This article cannot be turned into a soapbox to attack Krivosheev and distort what he has written. Pease note I own the English translation of Krivosheev, if the need arises I can E mail PDF copies of any text that is disputed.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Also the the analysis of Russian scholar Viktor Zemskov was distorted here. [10] the annonymous user in Russia cherrypicked statistics from a Zemskov article to push his POV. The reader is not given the actual facts re Zemskov's analysis which I later posted to the article.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The style of these POV attacks remind me of Soviet propaganda from the Leonid Brezhnev era--Woogie10w (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know, who that anonimous user is, if me, I have presented the essence of Zemskov's article as it is in the original and I can still sign under every word of my post. It's my right to underline in what way Zenskov's opinions differ with those of the other historians. My post has been checked and verified by several editors of the Russian WP and has been accepted into its article. Your version is weeker and less precise, for you even do not spell the author properly: "Zmeskov" and mix English text with some Russian passages which gives away your uncertainity in translation.

Who are your fringe historians, if they are not regarded as such in Russia? Zemskov has the highest degree of Doctor of History, Lopukhovsky is a Master of Military Sciences (as Krivosheev) and author of many books on the GPW, Kavalerchik has also authored several books on the GPW.

And who's are these [unreliable source?] marks. The score of the North-Western Front in 1941 507,703 : 182,264 comes from Igor Ivlev's book into that by Lopukhovsky and Kavalerchik. Unlike Krivosheev, Ivlev studied the front's losses with all reinforcements and even trains to the front. Moreover, his studies have been analized and supported by Lopukhovsky and Kavalerchik.

"As a result the real irrecoverable casualties of the North-Western Front in 1941, for example, are 2.8 times bigger, than in Krivisheev's book (507,703 : 182,264).[67][unreliable source?] Krivosheev adds only 1,162,600 dead to compensate for "no reports" situation of 1941 and his irrecoverable losses for 1941 diminish the official Soviet figures for that year by 2.16 million:[68] from 5,300,000 to 3.137.673 (but he maintains 6.3 million firearms were lost). In Moscow winter offensive his irrecoverable Soviet casualties and lost firearms stand at 1 : 7.9.[69][unreliable source?]

As for diminishing official losses of 5.3 million in 1941 to 3.137.673 by Krivosheev, it can be verified not only by L&K, but also by the official Soviet military enciclopedias - Великая Отечественная война, 1941-1945; События. Люди. Документы: Краткий исторический справочник. – М.: Политиздат, 1990, - с. 76, http://poteri-sssr.livejournal.com/16158.html#cutid1. As for the firearms lost in 1941, not only by L&K, but also by Bayerbach from Germany in his report.

Krivosheev's analysis obviously conflicts the Russian Military Archives data base of individual war dead, which still lists over 7 million missing soldiers and sergeants alone, as well as opinions of the highest ranking Russian officials.[citation needed] The then President Dmitry Medvedev, who had refused to announce General Staff's figure of 8.7 million military casualties on May 9, 2010,[43][need quotation to verify]. There is a precise reference - Лев Лопуховский, Борис Кавалерчик, "Когда мы узнаем реальную цену разгрома гитлеровской Германии? (Lev Lopukhovsky, Boris Kavalerchik, When shall we Learn Real Price of VG?) http://podelise.ru/docs/89408/index-221.html?page=8.

If it is not enough, read the whole story: По сообщению РИА «Новости», начальник управления МО РФ по увековечиванию памяти погибших при защите Отечества генерал-майор А. Кирилин 5 мая 2010 г. сделал следующее заявление:

"Работа нашей межведомственной комиссии фактически завершена. По уточненным данным, общие людские потери СССР за военный период составили - 26,6 млн. человек, безвозвратные боевые потери личного состава вооруженных сил, с учетом боев на Дальнем Востоке, составили 8 млн. 668 тыс. 400".

Далее Кирилин продолжил:

"Потери личного состава частей и подразделений народного ополчения, партизанских отрядов, формирований гражданских министерств и ведомств, принимавших участие в обеспечении боевых действий фронтов и сил флота, учтены в общих потерях гражданского населения страны".

При этом он публично объявил, что эти цифры будут доложены руководству страны, с тем, чтобы они были озвучены 9 мая, в день 65-й годовщины Победы. Подобные заявления без согласования с адресатом, учитывая его высокий ранг, не делают.

Судя по всему, политическое руководство России не пошло на поводу военных. В канун празднования Дня Победы оно не удовлетворило просьбу руководителей Генштаба о придании данным о потерях Вооруженных Сил в Великой Отечественной войне официального статуса. Видимо, наверху знают о серьезной критике результатов их труда и решили не вмешиваться в споры историков.

You are an accountant, I am a historian by education and journalist by profession. History, as any other science, prefers professionals and professional attitudes.

Krivosheev's report is simply doomed to go into the "Soviet war myths" category, because "it is as soft, as shit", as you have labeled it. Въ 176.195.171.141 (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• One more questionable question mark — in Krivosheev's analysis. "They remain classified up to this moment, according to Igor Ivlev with his 23 years of work in the Central Defense Ministry Archive (CDMA).[9][unreliable source?]. OK! One more source to verify it. L&K confirm that those documents remain classified and urge the authorities to open them to the public. See Лев Лопуховский, Борис Кавалерчик, "Когда мы узнаем реальную цену разгрома гитлеровской Германии? (Lev Lopukhovsky, Boris Kavalerchik, When shall we Learn Real Price of VG?) http://podelise.ru/docs/89408/index-221.html?page=2

Look at your narration of Krivosheev's report. "1,103,300 POW died in captivity or were released for service in Germanyand 1,836,000 returned to the U.S.S.R. after the war.[18][19]." 823,230 released are supposed to remain alive. That statement of yours leaves only 276,770 deaths in German captivity per Krovosheev.

Then there is a table of POW deaths. You have deleted Krivosheev's column and mixed the figures of the remaning three, so that the numbers do not add down. Do the math. Otherwise we do look stupid. Въ 95.220.181.69 (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Nick-D, This Chapter ‘s title is Criticism of Krivosheev. So, what WP:BLP are you talking about? This criticism is based on books of well known military historians, not on my POV. The figures given there are also theirs. Krivosheev is the only author who has mixed into one category missing in action and POWs. Here is a passage from his own book РОССИЯ И СССР В ВОЙНАХ XX ВЕКА http://lib.ru/MEMUARY/1939-1945/KRIWOSHEEW/poteri.txt#w09.htm-_Toc2489827 : После тщательного анализа всех источников предварительно было определено, что за годы войны пропало без вести и оказалось в плену 5 млн. 59 тыс. советских военнослужащих, в числе которых 500 тыс. военнообязанных, призванных по мобилизации, но захваченных противником в пути в воинские части. Как выяснилось при дальнейшем исследовании, не все пропавшие без вести были пленены. Около 450-500 тыс. чел. из них фактически погибли или будучи тяжело ранеными, остались на поле боя, занятом противником [ 60 ]. В результате изучения различных материалов авторы пришли к выводу, что фактически в немецком плену находилось около 4 млн. 559 тыс. военнослужащих, в числе которых и военнообязанные (500 тыс. чел.). (C of the Table) The total death toll calculated with all Krivosheev's figures excluding conscripted reservists captured before being listed on active strength, not listed as military casualties, this does not correlate with his figure of 2.5 million killed. The figure of 2.5 million POW dead would be calculated by taking 4,559,000 military missing and 500,000 conscripted reservists less 500,000 missing in action, 1,836,000 returned to USSR and 180,000 emigrated to other countries, not not deducting 939,700 reported missing and later returned to service. This does not agree to Krivosheev's calculation of total war dead that deducts the 939,700 reported missing and later returned to service from the 4,559,000 reported missing. Lopukhovsky and Kavalerchik have given even smaller number per Krivoshhev of 239,100 by deleting 200,000 men liberated by Germans in the last year of the war, but adding 159,000 presumably conscripted by Wehrmacht. Thus, only 5,9 per cent of Soviet POWs lost their lives in German captivity per Krivosheev having made nazi's concentration camps the safest place for Russian men from 1941 to 1945. Tell me, what is wrong? 280,070 Soviet POWs dead is an adapted version without 200,000 men liberated by Germans in the last year of the war (the fact ignored by Krivosheev) and 159,000 presumably (by L&K) conscripted by Wehrmacht.

Since the initial official figures of the Soviet war losses appeared in the Soviet Union, the first author to have revised them in the new Russia is general Krovosheev. What is wrong?

• Grigoriy Krivoshhev. Just two examples of the general's revisionism. There are official Soviet figures of military casualties in 1941, i.e. 5,3 million dead, captured and missing. Later genaral Krivosheev diminished them by more than two million to 3,137,673 without any reasons or explanations given. The Extraordinary State Commission has revealed 3,912,283 Soviet POWs killed by the Germans in the USSR alone, yet Krivosheev insists on only 2,5 million obviously conflicting with his own step by step calculations which reveal 239,100 POWs dead.

Everything is correct. I can sign after each word.

World War II casualties of the Soviet Union from all related causes were commonly estimated in excess of 20,000,000, both civilians and military, although the statistics vary to a great extent largely because these figures are currently disputed. There are two approaches to this topic: the Soviet one is to hide as top secret and at best to dose the truth. The current assessment by Russian Ministry of Defense is an example of the Soviet type, that total losses were 26.6 million both civilians and military, with military dead being 8.7 million. These figures have surprisingly been accepted by most historians outside Russia. However the figure of 8.7 million military dead has been disputed in Russia because it is in conflict with the official database of the Central Defense Ministry Archive (CDMA) which lists the names of over 14 million dead and missing servicemen and is still far from being complete. Independent researchers in Russia and other former Soviet republics have to dig for a second type (i.e. true) story without access to the most important documents. They have put total losses in the war, both civilians and military, at over 40 million. This article covers the details of the Russian government sources as well as a presentation of sources disputing these figures.

As a pro-historian, I can sign after each of these edits. What is wrong? With his show-offy figures Krivosheev is a laughing stock of the Russian Internet community. It is a real surprise, that Western historians have swallowed his stuff hook, line and sinker.

There are two approaches to this topic: the Soviet one is to hide as top secret and at best to dose the truth. That’s right.

In any discussion historians specify what opinions of what other historians are right or wrong and in what aspects. It is not necessary to be BLP crazy, if you come across such discussions. History is dead without criticism.

You should trust Russian historians, as they know the situation in their own country much better than any outsider. There is not a single word in the article of a serious ideological struggle around Soviet losses in WWII. Krivosheev is a representative of some influential circle of top generals who are doing all they can to equalize military losses with those of Nazis or at least with their predecessors from the Russian Empire who’s WWI score was really 1 : 1. They don’t stop before any tricks, hoaxes and show-offs, keeping all the necessary data classified. Otherwise you teach dolphins swimming.

The main sources for the figures were "reports from the field" that were secret during the Soviet era and remain classified up to 2013. Krivosheev's group kept maintaining: no reports — no losses. And in the most crucial period of 1941-1942 no surrounded or defeated units sent any reports on their casualties. They simply disappeared with their servicemen, arms, documents and the banner. Krivosheev's analysis also ignored reinforcements that often outnumbered the initial personnel of a unit. As a result the real irrecoverable casualties of the Noth-Western Front in 1941, for example, are 2.8 times bigger, than in Krivisheev's book (507,703 : 182,264) . Krivosheev adds only 1,162,600 dead to compensate for "no reports" situation of 1941 and his irrecoverable losses for 1941 diminish the official Soviet figures for that year by 2.16 million : from 5,300,000 to 3.137.673 (but he maintains 6.3 million firearms were lost). In Moscow winter offensive his irrecoverable Soviet casualties and lost firearms stand at 1 : 7.9 . He puts the final Soviet military dead and missing at 8.7 million.

Every word here is true. If you have another opinions, kindly specify. May be you have not read Lev Lopukhovsky, Boris Kavalerchik, When shall we Learn Real Price of VG? Do it, if you read in Russian. I am not only a historian. The war has rolled over my family as a steamroller. We have experienced its every tragedy and glory. We have our own heroes, dead without making a single shot, POW, minuteman, dead of hunger, fighting in anti-aircraft detachments, veterans of WWI, February, October and August revolutions, Civil war, war with Finland and Japan and a military historian. Regards, Въ 95.220.181.69 (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Lev Lopukhovsky and Boris Kavalerchik[30][unreliable source?] Don't make this article a laughing stock. How on earth can Lev Lopukhovsky and Boris Kavalerchik be unreliable source on their own works? Besides, they are citing Streit as their main source. They have only added POWs held by Finland and Romania to his figures on Germany. The number of repatriated POWs is a common figure with Krivosheev's report. Do you mean, Streit and Krivosheev are also unreliable?

You have produced no examples of attacks on Krivoshhev referenced to "dubious or no references", just your own likes and dislikes. It is clear to any unbiased reader. Въ 176.195.46.83 (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Dear Nick-D and Woogie10w, you have found no arguments against my objections, thus agreeing to having performed a miscarriage of semi-protection. You are also thus protecting gross mistakes largely due to reshuffling of various chapters and paragraphsof the article. In this case at least references should change their numbers and the narrative thread be restored. With such edits you both do look funny after having chased away a pro editor. Въ 95.220.255.164 (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Causes

Please compare the estimates of casualties, even the low ones, and the content of the section.

1. There were millions of Soviet soldiers along the Western border in June 1941, unprepared for defence. Those who transfered them there (Soviet leaders) were responsible.
2. Soviet government instigated partisan war accepting German revenge. Polish underground decided not to fight in 1940 to prevent German crimes. The subject was discussed above, one year ago.
3. Millions of civilians were ordered to figh almost unarmed, in civilians clothes. How many of the civilians were registered?
4. Hunger Plan isn't quoted here, it's quoted in World War II casualties.

Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Re your points, could you please clarify.

1-Soviet soldiers along the Western border is mentioned

2-Soviet government instigated partisan war I presume that you are implying that that the Soviets not the Germans are responsible for the civilian deaths because they were not registered.

3-civilians were ordered to fight almost unarmed, in civilians clothes I presume that you are implying the German policy of reprisals was justified

4-the Hunger Plan isn't quoted here, true but the huge civilian losses due to famine are mentioned.

One point I would like to make is that the Nazi policy in the USSR the killing of Soviet Jews. Historians of the Holocaust consider the partisan movement a justified response.

--Woogie10w (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

By 'civilians' I mean people drafted under Soviet administration, eg. in Moscow or Eastern Ukraine but unarmed or poorly armed, without military training and in civilan clothes. They were called "crows" (I don't know which bird exactly of the genus), probably because of their civilian clothes. Many of them died unregistered. The same happened in Poland in Poznań 1945 - pl:Cytadelowcy (the article quotes censored texts, the linked article is better).

The Soviet partisan system was the most cruel in Europe not only because the Germans. If the French underground really fought the Germans, the Germans would have murdered French civilians and a spiral of violence worked. De Gaulle didn't order French people to die and even if he did only few people would have obeyed. Sure that the Germans murdered or organized local people to kill each other but the commanders of Soviet partizans didn't care about civilian casulaties either. As I have written and you don't answer the Polish underground decided not to fight in 1940 to prevent German repressions (after Hubal's operation) and limited its operations later. Polish communists wanted to start a Soviet style partizan war in Poland (only after the SU was invided) but failed. The HA attacked German trains outside Poland (Wachlarz) to save Polish civilians.Xx236 (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Where Soviet soldiers along the Western border are mentioned? It's mentioned they died but not who put them breaking elementary logic. Adolf Hitler didn't.Xx236 (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read our discussion of April 2013, nothing new.Xx236 (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Western historians of the eastern front point out that the partisan movement played an important role in the 1943-44 offensive. Stalin demanded that the London Poles engage in a similar campaign to support the Soviet offensive, but instead in 1943-44 the Polish AK was fighting against the Soviet partisans east of the Curzon line.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss with comrade Stalin. When you lear history of Eastern Europe - please return. Xx236 (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

There are several POVs - Soviet, Polish, Belarus and Ukrainian. You present the Soviet one. Or maybe the Western one - let the Slavs die for our empires.Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Partisan war by Musiał

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/406/262choda.html

http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/rezensionen/2010-4-040

• Soviet massacres

Naliboki massacre

Koniuchy massacre

• General Russian texts

http://demoscope.ru/weekly/2013/0559/s_map.php#1

Xx236 (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The extensive fighting destroyed

Some resources were destroied by retreating Red Army, see Scorched earth (no source there).

• Joseph Stalin: Scorched earth

Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC) ru:Тактика выжженной земли quotes Encyclopedia Britannica. Typical.Xx236 (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I am now doing extensive research on Soviet civilian casualties. Today I will be at the NY Public Library to do more research.--Woogie10w (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

References

It's the same article but under Russian and English title.Xx236 (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No, Ref Nrs, 59 and 62 refer to two different articles

O.K. - I was wrong. Unfortunately the two articles have the same title. The references aren't logical and they are repeated under Sources in another way.

There is the site [11] which summarises all author's works.Xx236 (talk) 07:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to shift focus

The piece is now organized around the official version and its critics. I propose instead that it shift to a more abstract consideration of the basic issues: - Three main data sources are relevant: (reports, database and population demographics) discuss their strengths and weaknesses - Categories of casualties. Civilian v military. Instead of arguing over the split, identify and size each category (by source)

Separately, do the arithmetic to come up with totals according to various schemes. Feedback encouraged! Lfstevens (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The focus today in historical literature is on the official figures published in Russia (1990-95) which are boilerplate in official Russian sources and are generally accepted by historians writing in the west. The critics mentioned here are on the fringe in Russia and are not widely known in English language. The current article presents this dichotomy. I did most of the work on this article and am glad to see other editors taking the time to clean it up. The critics are given a fair hearing but the bottom line is that their opinions are on the fringe, for example Mark Solonin is the proponent of the thesis that Stalin intended to attack Europe and the Germans preempted him. The authors of the "Washed in Blood" include writers that support conspiracy theories. I think we need to build a firewall around these folks who lack credibility, but on Wikipedia we have a NPOV and present both sides of the argument. My hope is that academics in the west will start to investigate the official sources and give us some solid analysis. Off Wiki I can say more about my OR--Woogie10w (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

One of the critics mentioned in the article ru:Пыхалов, Игорь Васильевич, Igor Pyhalov is a prolific author in Russia who supports Stalin. We are not talking about mainstream academic sources. --Woogie10w (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, I believe that we should not give undue emphasis to fringe theories regarding Soviet casualties, especially since these writers are virtually unknown outside of Russia. The only reason they wound up here is that an anonymous IP in Russia POV pushed Igor Pyhalov's book and attempted to hijack the article. An Admin had to intervene and lock the article. --Woogie10w (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

IMO Igor Pyhalov's book has too much space here, I would like to trim that section down to size. --Woogie10w (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we're continuing to confuse the authors with data and logic. We can't reason just from authority, but should try to find sources that consider all the issues and help us see through the clutter. Are there secondary sources that help us do this? Either way, I still think a shift away from individuals towards arguments about sources and reasoning will serve our audience better. Lfstevens (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You have mentioned sources that consider all the issues and help us see through the clutter. Have you seen anything that we can discuss?--Woogie10w (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You mention authors with data and logic. The authors Krivosheev, (ADK) and the 1995 Russian Academy of Sciences study present the official Russian government version of Soviet casualties, they are not independent scholars. Authors Sokolov, Solonin and Zemskov are allowed to publish in Russia, however their criticism has received scant attention outside of Russia. Historians outside of Russia generally accept the official figures of Krivosheev and (ADK). During the Glasnost era the Archives database of names of dead and missing servicemen was a topic of discussion in Russia and Illenkov published his articles. In 2002 Krivosheev claimed that the database is unreliable. In the Putin era the topic of the Archives database is taboo.

Historians outside of Russia have not yet published a study that tie together the data and logic. According to the Cambridge History of Russia "In short the general picture of Soviet wartime losses suggests a jigsaw puzzle. The general outline is clear: people died in colossal numbers but in many different miserable and terrible circumstances. But individual pieces of the puzzle do not fit well; some overlap and others are yet to be found"'

We can only present the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle here. On Wikipedia we cannot combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. Lets not engage in OR and put our SYN here.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on World War II casualties of the Soviet Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131102162039/http://www.rusamny.com/352/t03(352).htm to http://www.rusamny.com/352/t03(352).htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110727160828/http://sovzem.mgimo.ru/news/council/186575.phtml to http://sovzem.mgimo.ru/news/council/186575.phtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131018182120/http://i.aldanlib.ru/portal/page0029.htm to http://i.aldanlib.ru/portal/page0029.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on World War II casualties of the Soviet Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130609123024/http://golosarmenii.am:80/ru/20402/home/26665 to http://www.golosarmenii.am/ru/20402/home/26665/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits by IP 109.252.84.137 re BLP rules

I posted this to the talk page of ann IP 109.252.84.137. [12]

Please familiarize with the Wikipedia rules regarding living persons, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons in Russian ru:Википедия:Биографии современников N.Savchenko is a living person. We cannot misrepresent the published statements of Savchenko , we must provide reliable sources that can be verified for all material we post regarding Savchenko. Please stop posting unsourced material regarding Savchenko, a living person--Woogie10w (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• The article by Nicolay Savchenko «Подробно о потерях Великой Отечественной»

was published in Demoscope Weekly No. № 559 – 560 of June 17 – 30. See http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2017/0745/index.php Demoscope Weekly is a scientific site of The Institute of Demography and its articles are regarded reliable authorized sources by VPs. See https://www.hse.ru/org/hse/demo

This is the full list of sources and literature used in his article:

1 Россия и СССР в войнах XX века: Потери вооруженных сил. Под редакцией Г.Ф.Кривошеева. http://lib.ru/MEMUARY/1939-1945/KRIWOSHEEW/poteri.txt Глава 5 Общая характеристика людских потерь.

2 Всесоюзная перепись населения 1959 г. Распределение населения СССР и союзных республик по полу, возрасту и состоянию в браке. СССР. http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/sng_mar_59.php

3 Первая всеобщая перепись населения Российской Империи 1897 г. Распределение населения по полу, возрасту и грамотности. http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_age_97.php

4 Всесоюзная перепись населения 1926 г. Возрастной состав населения СССР и союзных республик. СССР http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/sng_age_26.php

5 Всесоюзная перепись населения 1939 г. Возрастной состав населения СССР и союзных республик. СССР. http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/sng_age_39.php

6 Всесоюзная перепись населения 1970 г.Распределение населения СССР и союзных республик по полу и возрасту. СССР. http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/sng_age_70.php

7 Всесоюзная перепись населения 1979 г. Распределение наличного и постоянного населения союзных республик по полу и возрасту (однолетние возрастные группы) СССР. http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/sng_age1_79.php

8 Всероссийская перепись населения 2002 года. Население России по полу и возрасту http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus2002_01.php

9 Narodowy spis powszechne z dnya 3 grudnia 1950. Struktura zawodowa I demograficzna ludnosci. Indywidualne gospodarstva rolne. Polska. Warszawa 1954 стр. 4 табл. 2 Ludnosc wedlug roku.

10 Destatis Statistisches Bundesamt. Age Structure 1950. https://www.destatis.de/bevoelkerungspyramide/

11 Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Population number of Hungary by sex and age 1949. http://www.ksh.hu/interaktiv/korfak/orszag_en.html

12 Statistics Finland. Population according to age (5-year) and sex in the whole country 1865 – 2011. http://pxweb2.stat.fi/database/StatFin/vrm/vaerak/vaerak_en.asp

13 Всесоюзная перепись населения 1959 г. Распределение населения СССР и союзных республик по полу, возрасту и состоянию в браке. РСФСР. http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/sng_mar_59.php?reg=1&gor=3&Submit=OK

14 Всесоюзная перепись населения 1959 г. Распределение населения регионов России по полу, возрасту и состоянию в браке. Марийская АССР. http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_mar_59.php?reg=80&gor=3&Submit=OK

15 Всесоюзная перепись населения 1959 г. Распределение населения регионов союзных республик по полу, возрасту и состоянию в браке. Белорусская ССР. Гродненская обл. http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/sng_mar_59_r.php?reg=29&gor=3&Submit=OK

16 Pierwszy Powczechny Spis Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z dnia 30 wrzesnia 1921 roku. Mieszkania, Ludnosc, Stosunki Zawodowe. Tablice Panstwowe. Warszawa 1927, Glowny Urzad Statystyczny. Стр. 38; Drugi Powczechny Spis Ludnosci z dn 9.12.1931 r. Mieszkania I Gospodarstwa Domowe. Ludnosc. Polska. Warszawa 1938, Nakladem Glownego Urzedu Statystycznego. Стр. 20.

17 Дефинитивни Результати Пописа Становништва од 31 jануара 1921 год. Белград. Стр. 382-385; Дефинитивни Результати Пописа Становништва од 31 марта 1931 год. Knjiga 3. Белград. Prisutno stanovnistvo po pismenosti I starosti.

18 Latvijas Statistika. Number of population by 5-year age group and sex, 1925 and 1935.http://www.csb.gov.lv/en/number-population-5-year-age-group-and-sex-1925-and-1935

19 Statistics Finland. Population according to age (5-year) and sex in the whole country 1865 – 2011. http://pxweb2.stat.fi/database/StatFin/vrm/vaerak/vaerak_en.asp

20 Eesti Statistika. POPULATION BY SEX AND AGE GROUP, http://pub.stat.ee/px-web.2001/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=PO021&ti=POPULATION +BY+SEX+AND+AGE+GROUP%2C+1+JANUARY&path= ../I_Databas/Population/01Population_indicators_and_composition/ 04Population_figure_and_composition/&lang=1

21 «Демографическая история России: 1927-1957», Москва "Информатика" 1998, 187 с., Е.М. Андреев, Л.Е., Дарский, Т.Л. Харькова. http://demoscope.ru/weekly/knigi/andr_dars_khar/adk.html

22 Карманный атлас СССР 1939. Главное управление геодезии и картографии при СНК СССР, Ленинград, 1939 http://minchanin.esmasoft.com/maps/ussr1939/

23 Полян П. «Оптации: с кем и когда в XX веке Россия обменивалась населением Россия и ее регионы в XX веке: территория - расселение - миграции // Под ред. О. Глезер и П. Поляна. - М.: ОГИ, 2005, с. 536-544// http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2007/0313/analit06.php

24 Аблажей Н. Н. Масштабы и последствия возвратной миграции из Китая в СССР. http://sibistorik.narod.ru/project/modern/018.html

25 Полян П. «Потери «от» и «до», «Время новостей», 25 мая 2010 года.

I have cited a simplified version of this article http://www.warandpeace.ru/ru/analysis/view/83544/ . The proper link will be http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2013/0559/tema01.php .

Do you happen to have any idea of Source criticism (or information evaluation)? It happens to be a subject of my university education? Въ109.252.84.137 (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Very good you should have cited this yesterday. In any case I am familiar with the article Demoscope by Savchenko--Woogie10w (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

All Researches by General Krivosheev on WWII Losses Were Scrapped Two Years Ago by Head of Russian Defense Ministry's Department

All researches by general Krivosheev on WWII losses were scrapped two years ago by The head of the Russian Defense Ministry's Department for perpetuating the memory of those who lost their lives in the defense of the Fatherland, Vladimir Popov See http://informing.ru/2015/11/13/minoborony-podschialo-poteri-sssr-v-velikoy-otechestvennoy-voyne.html They are no longer regarded as authorized sources in Russia.

The head of the Russian Defense Ministry's Department for perpetuating the memory of those who lost their lives in the defense of the Fatherland, Vladimir Popov, has sounded out the specified figures for losses of the USSR in the Great Patriotic War.

According to these data, the total loss was 26.6 million people. Almost 12 million servicemen - this is the figure of the losses of the army and armed forces*. 4.5 million missing and POWs. 1.8 million returned to their homeland from captivity. 5.3 million people were forcibly hijacked to work in Germany, 2.2 million of whom were killed. This was told by the head of the Russian delegation who arrived in Germany for an event on the occasion of the Day of National Memory and Sorrow.

• It is a policy of the Defense Ministry not to include into those 12 million losses among 4 million men of Minutemen’s divisions, among more than 1 million guerilla detachments, among 793 000 troops drafted for military training without registration by Military Commissariats as servicemen, among over 500 000 of drafted directly into the Armed Forces without Military Commissariats and so on. Въ109.252.84.137 (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Vladimir Popov did not say Krivosheev's figures were scrapped. The MOD website still cites his figure of 8.668 million as being the total military loss. I am familiar with the figure of "almost 12 million". The figure comes from Krivosheev 6.885 killed or died wounds plus 4.559 million POW taken. [13] Here again we can see Russian MOD figures use Krivosheev's figures [14]--On Wikipedia we must mirror the sources, we cannot misrepresent them to agree with our POV. In the case of Krivosheev the MOD still cites his figure for total losses Сегодня можно с определенной долей вероятности констатировать, что потери Советского Союза составили 26,6 млн человек, в том числе потери Вооруженных Сил составили 8 668 400 военнослужащих --We cannot misrepresent the position of the MOD, they have not scrapped Krivosheev's figures----Woogie10w (talk) 11:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Krivosheev's figures is a laughing stock of Russian and Ukrainian historians with a crazy goal to equalize the score with the Tzar's generals who were 1:1 with Germans, Austrian and Turks 100 years ago. Based on show-offy field reports of encircl--Woogie10w (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)ed, defeated, flying to the East headquaters they conflict all the really established data. Lost firearms outnumber lost soldiers 6 fold, no reports mean no losses, offical registered figures of killed Communists and Komsomol members tend to become two thirds of the whole death toll, though both were at best a quarter of the Armed Forces, the Soviet rear has become the most dangerous place for males of draft ages with the fronline being the safest, 22 million retail deposits of the Soviet missed in action being still unclaimed at the Central Bank e.t.c. Въ

Interesting but it does not prove that X persons died in the war, what about the guy who was sent to the MVD prison and died there in 1948 and the other guy who was relocated to Siberia, he said what the fuck I'm not going back to Minsk to claim 46 Rubles in my account. --Woogie10w (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

109.252.84.137 - Въ I left you a message on your talk page.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• I have replied there. Въ109.252.84.137 (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Please, Savchenko belongs with Demographic Studies, that is wikipedia style. --Woogie10w (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Russia is really a country of unpredictable past. See the new official figures of war casualties at the beginning of the Article.Въ109.252.84.173 (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The accuracy of the figure of 42 million total war dead

Russia is really a country of unpredictable past. See the new official figures of war casualties at the beginning of the Article.Въ109.252.84.173 (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The Claims made State Duma Deputy Mr. Nikolai Zemtsov at the parliamentary hearings of February 14, 2017 are not the official figures of the Russian Federation. The official figures are in fact 26.6 million war dead including 8.668 military dead [15] Please do not misrepresent the official position of the Russian Federation, your statements are false. --Woogie10w (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Here is the statement of the official figures recognized by the Russian Federation as published on the MOD website and an English translation:

Сегодня можно с определенной долей вероятности констатировать, что потери Советского Союза составили 26,6 млн человек, в том числе потери Вооруженных Сил составили 8 668 400 военнослужащих. В общую статистическую цифру входят не только погибшие в бою и умершие от ран и болезней, но и погибшие во время бомбежек, артиллерийских обстрелов и карательных акций мирные граждане, расстрелянные и замученные в лагерях военнопленные, подпольщики, а также угнанные на принудительные работы в Германию.

Today, it can be stated with a certain degree of probability that the losses of the Soviet Union amounted to 26.6 million people, including the loss of the Armed Forces amounted to 8,668,400 troops. The total statistical figure includes not only those killed in combat and those who died from wounds and illnesses, but also civilians who died during bombings, artillery shelling and punitive actions, prisoners of war shot and tortured in the camps, as well as those who were hunted for forced labor in Germany.

This cannot be disputed--Woogie10w (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

History Must Be Disputed, Critisism is Driving Engine of this Science

It can and it must be disputed. Remember as ABCD, since 1991 there has been no longer official history of this country and there must be no official position of the Russian Federation in any science including history. The chief military historian of Russia All-Star general Makhmout Garrev does not regard Krivosheevshchina official. And the State Duma is of much higher authority than any Ministry of the Government. See Russian VP:

Схожие с оценками Бориса Соколова цифры людских потерь (41 миллион 979 тысяч человек безвозвратных потерь от факторов войны, из них более 19 миллионов военнослужащих и около 23 миллионов гражданского населения, при общей убыли населения СССР в 1941—1945 годах ​более 52 миллионов 812 тысяч человек), со ссылкой на «расскреченные данные Госплана СССР», были приведены депутатом Николаем Земцовым во время парламентских слушаний в Государственной Думе 14 февраля 2017 года[71][72].

The main demonstration of the Immortal Regiment in Moscow is annually headed by President Putin himself. As far as I know, no denial or disregard of these figures have come from his Administration.

You may fool your American historians as long as you want. But the big-star humbugs of history can no longer fool anybody in our country. Въ109.252.84.173 (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

What's the problem? The fact that there is a dispute is now made clear in the lede. Let's be honest here Putin did not invite Immortal Reg for a photo-op in his office and endorse the 42 million figure, the wants votes, but the MOD still uses the 1993 figures.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Do you know what esprit de corps means? As a matter of fact, the generals would give their right arms to prove that they were as good on the battlefields, as their German counterparts. On the other hand the civil officials compete to measure their republic's (province's or city's) investement into the сommon victory by their republic's... military losses. That is why the two official pictires of military losses are 1 : 3.5. The Duma's statement may be false, if it is not supported by declassified data of The State Planning Committee. If it is, it shoud be correct.Въ109.252.84.173 (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The declassified data of The State Planning Committee is only part of their argument, IR cherry picked figures from other sources to arrive at the 42 million. Please familiarize with their calculations, see article by Mark Harrison [16]. If you have any difficulty I can walk you through the figures.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be a newcomer to Wikipedia. The rules are strict, we can't use Wikipedia to promote our POV, readers must be able to verify the information, articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. Break the rules and you will find that there are people here who will enforce them.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I checked the website of the Immortal Reg [17] but could not find a mention of the 42 million. I expected to find it, but it seems to me that IR helps folks find their grandfather. BTW here in the US we don't have such a search service. Putin deserves credit for this good work. Now I understand the meaning of Росси́я для ру́сских--Woogie10w (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Your preferences are always with the official information. Here is a letter from the State Duma (or IR?) to an inquiry on February 14, 2017 hearings on the official nature of Mr Zemtsov's testimony, as cited by its recipient.

Здравствуйте, уважаемый Борис Романов!

1) Депутат государственной думы, огласивший эти цифры, является действующим официальным и полномочным представителем правительства РФ, соответственно, его заявление - это официальная позиция правительства РФ.

2) Указное выше заявление было сделано в момент исполнения лицом своих служебных обязанностей в месте официального сбора членов правительства и во время официальной и публичной встречи представителей высших органов власти.

3) На встрече присутствовали, в том числе, представители министерства обороны и комитета дума по обороне, т. е. специалисты и представители власти по данному вопросу.

4) Никаких официальных опровержений данного заявления с тех пор не последовало.

Generals Krivosheev and Gareev are also still standing at attention.

Thank you for Mark Harrison's article. But there were no referencies to Mr. Ivleev at the Duma's hearings. Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

This cannot be verified. You made this nonsense up. You seem to be a newcomer to Wikipedia. The rules are strict, we can't use Wikipedia to promote our POV, readers must be able to verify the information, articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. Break the rules and you will find that there are people here who will enforce them.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• At least it has been verified that the Immortal Regiment is now winning its battle vs (still) Soviet generals. As for Mark Harrison, his article does hold water, but he analises only demographic aspects of Mr. Ivlev. I have seen the same opinion in a Russian internet talk page. But Ivlev's research on 19 million military losses is a separate issue. Can they be less than 19 million, if

1. The archived Communist Party and Komsomol members’ personal records alone contain death tolls of 3 and 4 million respectively with both categories having been about 30 per cent of the Armed Forces;

2. The volume of unique notices about the fate of servicemen (dead or MIA) of all categories in military enlistment offices, the Pension Fund and on the hands of the population is estimated at 20-21 million in all republics of the former USSR;

3. There were 46,744 million men born in 1886-1927 with only 27,146 million men of this age group registered as voters to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR by February 10, 1946;

4. The imbalance between men and women in favor of women for the period from January 1939 to February 1946 increased from 3,421,530 to 26,185,000 - by 22,763,470 ?

Mr Harrison does not have any answer. Do you?

Here your are with IR https://polkrf.ru/news/1275/parlamentskie_slushaniya_patrioticheskoe_vospitanie_bessmertnyiy_polk .

6 years in VP were enough to learn that each rule in it has an opposite one. Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I checked Russian Wikipedia, they are not promoting the 42 million. They rejected your proposal to plug that in the introduction. Возражения были против размещения в преамбуле, как альтернативная теория, думаю, может и значимо для нас. это все--Woogie10w (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• They rejected your (my) proposal???

• Not mine, but that of 95.104.190.118. His name is Борис Романов! Nor I am promoting this figure of 42 million. I don't even know its origin. But it seems to have become the official one. Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

If we use logic the figure of 26.6 million war dead makes sense.

1-In 1991 Kozhurin detailed the Soviet population figures from 1939 to Jan 1941. The 1939 figure of 170.467 million is taken from the census. The figure includes civilians, military and civilians held by NKVD per ADK study. The figures in the Kozhurin article start with the 1939 population, adds 21.784 million for annexed territory and the natural increase in population from 1/1939 to 1/1941 - our total is 198.713 million. The figure on Iglev's website 199.920 million brings this up to 7/1941. Figure includes civilians, military and prisoners. In 1945 we have to reduce this by 1.3 million for the loss of Białystok and add Tana-Tuva

2-The 7/1945 GOSPLAN figure of 151.166 million is the civilian population as reported by local authorities in the USSR; the military total was 12.840 per Krivosheev; civilians abroad per Zmeskov 3.902 million; civilians held by NKVD per Zmeskov 4.100 million. Total population in mid 1945 172 million.

3-7/1941 population 199.2 million less loss of Białystok and add Tana-Tuva 198.6 million less the 7/1945 population 172 million equals 26.6 million.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• 26.6 million - 8.27 million civilian deaths (per Nikolay Savchenko) = 18.33 servicemen lost. He seems to be closer to a tru story. How about that? Βъ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey please stop it, we don't play games here, we need to be honest. You attempted to misrepresent the position of the Russian government assuming that folks outside of Russia can't read Russian. Note well that on Russian Wikipedia the fringe theories of Iglev were also removed from the lede. I am not saying that Iglev is right or wrong only that academic sources disagree with him and support the official Russian government position that is backed up by reliable sources that readers can verify. Iglev's theories deserve mention but we cannot turn English Wikipedia into a soapbox to push his fringe POV--Woogie10w (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• To be honest you have to use the only safe archive data on the military losses with names, dates of birth, residences e.t.c. 3 million communists and 4 million Komsomol members were (officialy) killed. 7 million all together. Both made up about 30 per cent of the Armed Forces. 7,000.000 : 0.3 = 23,333,330 soldiers and officers. Otherwise you have to admit, as general Krivosheev have done, that the Germans used selective bombs, shells, mortar shells, mines, torpedoes and bullets to aim at communists. Are you ready to do it? Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The rules here are strict, we can't use Wikipedia to promote our POV, readers must be able to verify the information, articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. Break the rules and you will find that there are people here who will enforce them.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• You have started to resemble an old scrached record. If we discuss something, we present arguments and data to support our point of view. Don't substitute them with anything else. Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Read the guidelines of Wikipedia that are listed there. If you don't follow these guidelines you will have no future here--Woogie10w (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• Those who know do (discuss), those who don't teach(how to behave). Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- there's currently no support for including these numbers in the prominent position in the lead. If the IP would like to discuss with a wider community, I recommend they post to WP:RSN. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• What numbers are you talking about? The death toll of Communists and the Young Communist League members? General Krivosheev's assertion of special German anticommunist shells and bullets would be enough :) Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Military Losses of Communists and Komsomol Members by Igor Ivlev in Demoscope No. 559560 of June 17—30, 2013. Don't mistake estimates for sources

After complete destruction in 1953 of registration cards on the enlisted men and warrant officers at all military commissariats throughout the Soviet Union the Soviet military losses can only be estimated. Entirely preserved, however, are the records of Communists and Komsomol members. Both groups represented 47.26 percent of the total draft —  34,476,700 —  all ages of servicemen and all regions of the country. That is why, the Communists and Komsomol members remain the most representative part of the Armed Forces to assess all military losses in WWII.

Group/Total Strength	On June 22,1941	Drafted	Joined Party in Armed Forсes	Joined Party from Komsomol	Left Komsomol by Age	Commissioned as Disabled	Remained in Armed Forces	Military Losses	Sources and Estimates
Communists 8,063,000	563,000*	1,500,000**	6,000,000***	—	—	600,000****	3,324,000*****	4,139,000 (killed, MIA, deserters, other reasons)	*ЭВОВ-352, **СОВОВ-955, ***СОВОВ-956, ****"ВОВ Сов. Союза 1941-45 гг.", М.: Воениздат, 1965, с. 589, *****ЭВОВ-360
Komsomol members 8,230,542	2,000,000*	3,500,000*	5,000,000**	1,769,458***	500,000****	700,000*****	2,400,000******	5,130,542 (killed, MIA, deserters, other reasons)	*СВЭ-2-401, ЭВОВ-186, **СВЭ-2-401, ЭВОВ-187, ***СВЭ-2-401, ИВОВ-6-367,******"Великая победа советского народа 1941-1945", М.: Наука, 1976, с. 124
Communists and Komsomol members 16,293,542	2,563,000	5,000,000	11,000,000	—	—	1,300,000	5,724,000	9,269,542 (common losses of both groups or 56,9 per cent of their total draft)	****Estimates by Igor Ivlev by strength of Komsomol members of 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916 years of birth in the Armed Forces, *****Estimates by Igor Ivlev by the total number of disabled (3,465,100) with percentage of the party and Komsomol members in the Armed Forces (excluding Communists)

Abbreviations: ЭВОВ —  Энциклопедия "Великая Отечественная война 1941-45 гг." (The Great Patriotic War of 1941—45 Encyclopedia), М.: Советская энциклопедия, 1985 г.; ИВОВ — "История Великой Отечественной войны Советского Союза 1941—1945 гг." (History of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union of 1941—1945), М.: Воениздат, 1961—65 гг.; СОВОВ — "Стратегический очерк Великой Отечественной войны 1941—1945 гг." (Strategic Essay of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945), М.: Воениздат, 1961. Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

There are no reasons to hide it anywhere, are there? If there are kindly produce your arguments. Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Moved

I moved the Immortal Regiment opinion from the lead into body with this edit. It's an apparently fringe opinion that's WP:UNDUE in the lead, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Military Losses of Communists and Komsomol Members by Igor Ivlev in Demoscope No. 559560 of June 17—30, 2013. Don't mistake estimates for sources

After complete destruction in 1953 of registration cards on the enlisted men and warrant officers at all military commissariats throughout the Soviet Union the Soviet military losses can only be estimated. Entirely preserved, however, are the records of Communists and Komsomol members. Both groups represented 47.26 percent of the total draft —  34,476,700 —  all ages of servicemen and all regions of the country. That is why, the Communists and Komsomol members remain the most representative part of the Armed Forces to assess all military losses in WWII.

Group/Total Strength	On June 22,1941	Drafted	Joined Party in Armed Forсes	Joined Party from Komsomol	Left Komsomol by Age	Commissioned as Disabled	Remained in Armed Forces	Military Losses	Sources and Estimates
Communists 8,063,000	563,000*	1,500,000**	6,000,000***	—	—	600,000****	3,324,000*****	4,139,000 (killed, MIA, deserters, other reasons)	*ЭВОВ-352, **СОВОВ-955, ***СОВОВ-956, ****"ВОВ Сов. Союза 1941-45 гг.", М.: Воениздат, 1965, с. 589, *****ЭВОВ-360
Komsomol members 8,230,542	2,000,000*	3,500,000*	5,000,000**	1,769,458***	500,000****	700,000*****	2,400,000******	5,130,542 (killed, MIA, deserters, other reasons)	*СВЭ-2-401, ЭВОВ-186, **СВЭ-2-401, ЭВОВ-187, ***СВЭ-2-401, ИВОВ-6-367,******"Великая победа советского народа 1941-1945", М.: Наука, 1976, с. 124
Communists and Komsomol members 16,293,542	2,563,000	5,000,000	11,000,000	—	—	1,300,000	5,724,000	9,269,542 (common losses of both groups or 56,9 per cent of their total draft)	****Estimates by Igor Ivlev by strength of Komsomol members of 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916 years of birth in the Armed Forces, *****Estimates by Igor Ivlev by the total number of disabled (3,465,100) with percentage of the party and Komsomol members in the Armed Forces (excluding Communists)

Abbreviations: ЭВОВ —  Энциклопедия "Великая Отечественная война 1941-45 гг." (The Great Patriotic War of 1941—45 Encyclopedia), М.: Советская энциклопедия, 1985 г.; ИВОВ — "История Великой Отечественной войны Советского Союза 1941—1945 гг." (History of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union of 1941—1945), М.: Воениздат, 1961—65 гг.; СОВОВ — "Стратегический очерк Великой Отечественной войны 1941—1945 гг." (Strategic Essay of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945), М.: Воениздат, 1961. Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Do not have seven Fridays in the week!

The situation you have created is called ‘to have seven Fridays in the week’. The phrase describes an inconstant person that often changes his decisions, comes back on his words, doesn’t fulfill his promises and so on. https://ochenporusski.com/seven-fridays-in-the-week/#J9RTiqrfZv9ZMQp0.99

The same demographic site Demoscope Weekly, the same WWII casualties, he same editor, the same or almost the same sources are reliable in the same article in case of Savchenko and unreliable in case of Ivlev, although in Ivlev's case they have come above all through Glavlit or the Soviet censorship authority. Though Savchenko's calcucations are much more complicated than Ivlev's 4 + 5 = 9. And the first figure correlates with Joseph Stalin's statement on party's losses!

By the way Russian archaeologists also question Ivlev's figures of military casualties. They keep excavating 8 Soviet servicemen per 1 German, which correlation brings Soviet military losses way bigger than 30 million as German losses are known exactly. Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Military Losses of Communists and Young Communist League Members

Строка	Движение численности за весь период войны и до 01.07.1945 г.	Убыль	Источники
1	563 000* было 22.06.1941 г. + 1 500 000** призвано + 6 000 000*** принято в ВС - 600 000**** комиссовано инвалидов - 3 324 000***** осталось в живых	4 139 000 (погибшие, пропавшие без вести, дезертиры, прочие причины)	*ЭВОВ-352, **СОВОВ-955, ***СОВОВ-956, ****"ВОВ Сов. Союза 1941-45 гг.", М.: Воениздат, 1965, с. 589, *****ЭВОВ-360
2	2 000 000* было 22.06.1941 г. + 3 500 000* призвано + 5 000 000** принято в ВС - 1 769 458*** принято в ВКП (б) - 500 000**** выбыло по возрасту в беспартийные - 700 000***** комиссовано инвалидов - 2 400 000****** осталось в живых	5 130 542 (погибшие, пропавшие без вести, дезертиры, прочие причины)	*СВЭ-2-401, ЭВОВ-186, **СВЭ-2-401, ЭВОВ-187, ***СВЭ-2-401, ИВОВ-6-367, ****оценка И.Ивлевым по численности воевавших членов ВЛКСМ 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916 г.р., *****оценка И.Ивлевым от числа инвалидов (3465100 ч.) по доле членов ВКП (б) и ВЛКСМ в ВС СССР - за минусом членов ВКП (б), ******"Великая победа советского народа 1941-1945", М.: Наука, 1976, с. 124
3	Общий ресурс коммунистов и комсомольцев 8 063 000 + 8 230 542 = 16 293 542	4 139 000 + 5 130 542 = 9 269 542 (общая убыль обеих категорий или 56,9% общего ресурса)

Сокращения в таблице: ЭВОВ - энциклопедия "Великая Отечественная война 1941-45 гг.", М.: Советская энциклопедия, 1985 г.; ИВОВ - "История Великой Отечественной войны Советского Союза. 1941-1945", М.: Воениздат, 1961-65 гг.;СОВОВ - "Стратегический очерк Великой Отечественной войны 1941-1945 гг.", М.: Воениздат, 1961. Въ

Sorry for saving it here in Russian. The Russian WP accepts no edits of this kind even in personnal talk pages. If it is interesting I'll make a translation for the article. Въ109.252.84.173 (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Please this needs to be in English for other editors to read. As as source it is stands by itself, it does not prove anything please read Wikipedia:SYN, you cannot use the above material to prove that Krivosheev is wrong. You need to find a reliable source that says Krivosheev is wrong and uses this material to back up the argument. Not all Communists and Komsomol were in the armed forces. --Woogie10w (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read carefully, these are potential not actual losses, the table does not say that they were all in the armed forces, only that party members, including civilians, were dead, missing or not present. Ivlev is Jumping to conclusions here--Woogie10w (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I went to my bookshelf and checked Великая Отечественная война, 1941—1945 : энциклопедия. — 1985, I could not find these figures. In fact on page 358 it puts most communists in the civilian economy!--Woogie10w (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• I don't give a damn about that general whose MIA soldiers have lost 6 rifles each, as one was enough to face a firing squard. Demoscope is a solid scientific publication as well as "Военно-исторический архив" magazine. All facts and figures have been checked and cross-checked. The generals have distroyed personnal registration cards of all soldiers and warrant officers. They did their best to hide military losses in the civilian ones. But historians have managed to restore the truth by counting dead communists and the YCL members, whose registration is intact. I can translate the whole thing into English, but not tonight. Bъ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Look you are wasting your time here trying to push fringe theories. There are rules on Wikipedia, I have shown them to you, try and push your fringe theories and you will find that there are people who will enforce the rules--Woogie10w (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

|}

Figures Themselves Don't Make Any Theories Let Alone Fringe Ones

Figures are just figures without any analises. But a clever and intelligent person will call the spade a spade. Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

There are No Reasons to Question Demoscope Weekly's Reliability

By January 1, 2017 The Demoscope Weekly was cited in 4 200 articles of The English and 4 700 of the Russian WP. There are No Reasons to Question Demoscope Weekly's Reliability for the 4 201st time basing on your personnal likes and dislikes only, are there? If you agree, I 'll make the necessary translation for the article. Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC) Your source is Ivlev not Demoscope--Woogie10w (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC) Your schedule is hard to read it needs to be simplified--Woogie10w (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• May be. But in any case the publication bears all responsibilities. Ivlev has made very few calculations himself and all at the elementary school level. May be you can advise me how to compose this table 7 of http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2013/0559/analit03.php  ? I think 25 lines are too much to be installed in the article. Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Въ I admire your perseverance but on Wikipedia we need to use reliable sources. Today your edits were reversed on Russian Wikipedia because they felt the sources you not reliable [18] [19] You are wasting your time here trying to push the fringe theories of Igor Ivlev. Въ, please become familiar with Wikipedia:Editing policy. With your perseverance you can make a positive contribution here, regards(lets not waste our time here, много моего и Вашего времени будет сэкономлено)--Woogie10w (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Kindly admire rules of WP too and don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The only fringe theories in the article are those of general Krivisheev. Remember his 620 per cent discrepancy between the lost firearms and the lost servicemen? Russian WP is well guarded by the payed "Kremlebots" and certain filters. The English one - by the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. Remember, The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable? Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• There is one very solid source to scrap the fraudulent data by Russian generals regarding the understating of military losses. It's Joseph Stalin's speech at a meeting with the creative intellectuals in 1946:

"Over the first six months of the war more than 500,000 Communists perished on the fronts, more than three million during the war".

Communists made up slightly more than 23 per cent of all servicemen. Thus Mr. Stalin has actually acknowledged that the total number of killed servicemen might have been from 13 to 17 million. https://kprf.ru/party-live/regnews/154836.html Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• What source of these below is unrelable: Encyclopedia "The Great Patriotic War of 1941-45", **"Strategic essay of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945", ***"The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union of 1941-45", "Soviet Military Encyclopedia", ****History of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union, 1941-1945, *****The Great Victory of the Soviet People 1941-1945? Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Igor Ivlev is an unreliable fringe source, he does not belong on Wikipedia. Ivlev took the sources you cited and manipulated the figures to push his fringe theories. Demoscope is a forum that published his article, they did not endorse it.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Igor Ivlev is not a source neither reliable nor unreliable. All sources are in the right column. He has done the only one "manipulation". He has deducted discharged incapacitated servicemen of both categories and Komsomol members for having exceeded their age limits. Should not he do that? Study source criticism (or information evaluation) hard. Demoscope is not in the position to endorse anything. It publishes what it consideres interesting and valuable. Death tolls of Communists and Komsomol members are the most important sources for military losses in general. He subtracted disabled disabled soldiers of both categories and members of the Komsomol for exceeding their age limits.Does not he have to do this?Igor Ivlev is not a source of either reliable or unreliable. All sources are in the right column.Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Igor Ivlev is the source of the posted material, he synthesized the data from multiple sources to arrive at his totals. Deomoscope is merely the website where the material was published,Deomoscope is not the source, Ivlev is in fact our source. Scholars believe that Ivlev's figures are without serious foundation.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Igor Ivlev is the best expert in the Soviet military losses, it is the job of his life. But he is no demographer. Neither is general Krivosheev. I have to agree with Mark Harrison. If you disagree that 4 + 5 = 9, you can make your own calculation as a pro accountant. But you should also label fringe data the Memory books of Tatarstan (350 000 of the 700 000 drafted lost), Ryazan Oblast (174 920 out of 300 000 drafted have not returned), Omsk Oblast (144 000 out of 287 000), Chelyabinsk Oblast (158 000 out of 251 143), Kaluga Oblast (160 000 out of 300 000), Republic of Mordovia (130 960 out of 241 000), Novgorod Oblast ( 122 593 out of 192 908)... Shall I continue? Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources for Communists' and Komsomol's military losses

1. На 22.06.41 членов ВКП (б) в кадровых ВС СССР было 563 000 коммуниста Источник: Энциклопедия "Великая Отечественная война 1941-45 гг.", М.: Советская энциклопедия, 1985 г., стр. 352;

2. Мобилизовано членов ВКП (б) в ВС СССР в 1941-45 гг. 1 500 000 Источник: "Стратегический очерк Великой Отечественной войны 1941-1945 гг.", М.: Воениздат, 1961., стр. 955;

3. Принято в члены ВКП (б) в ВС СССР за 1941-45 гг. 6 000 000 Источник: "Стратегический очерк Великой Отечественной войны 1941-1945 гг.", М.: Воениздат, 1961., стр. 956;

4. Результат сложения этих показателей называется суммой. Считать можно устно, в столбик, на калькуляторе. Все равно получается 8 063 000. Автор называет это Общим ресурсом членов ВКП (б). Две уважаемые редакции в этой цифре не усомнились;

5. Убыло членов ВКП (б) инвалидами после ранений и болезней из ВС СССР в 1941-45 гг. 600 000 Источник: "ВОВ Сов. Союза 1941-45 гг.", М.: Воен-издат, 1965, с. 589;

6. На 01.07.45 членов ВКП (б) в ВС СССР 3 324 000 Источник: Энциклопедия "Великая Отечественная война 1941-45 гг.", М.: Советская энциклопедия, 1985 г., стр. 360;

7. Всего возможные потери членов ВКП (б) в ВС СССР за 1941-45 гг. (погибшие, пропавшие без вести, дезертиры, прочие причины): 8 063 000 - 600 000 - 3 324 000 = 4 139 000 разница строк 4, 5, 6

8. На 22.06.41 членов ВЛКСМ в кадровых ВС СССР 2000000 Источники: "Советская военная энциклопедия", М.: Воениздат, 1961 г., т. 2, стр. 401, Энциклопедия "Великая Отечественная война 1941-45 гг.", М.: Советская энциклопедия, 1985 г., стр. 186;

9. Мобилизовано членов ВЛКСМ в ВС СССР в 1941-45 гг. 3 500 000 Источники те же: СВЭ-2-401, ЭВОВ-186;

10. Вступило беспартийных в ВЛКСМ в ВС СССР в 1941-45 гг. 5 000 000 Источники те же: СВЭ-2-401, ЭВОВ-187;

11. Принято из ВЛКСМ в члены ВКП (б) в ВС СССР за 1941-45 гг. 1 769 458 Источники: СВЭ-2-401, "История Великой Отечественной войны Советского Союза. 1941-1945", М.: Воениздат, 1961-65 гг., т.6, стр. 367;

12. Выбыло в беспартийные по возрасту из членов ВЛКСМ в ВС СССР в 1941-45 гг. 500 000 оценка по численности воевавших членов ВЛКСМ 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916 г.р.

13. Общий ресурс членов ВЛКСМ: 2000000 + 3500000 + 5000000 -1769458 - 500000 = 8230542 строки 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

14. На лето 1945 г. членов ВЛКСМ в ВС СССР 2 400 000 Источник: "Великая победа советского народа 1941-1945", М.: Наука, 1976, с. 124;

15. Убыло членов ВЛКСМ инвалидами после ранений и болезней из ВС СССР в 1941-45 гг. 700 000 оценка от числа инвалидов (3465100 ч.) по доле членов ВКП (б) и ВЛКСМ в ВС СССР - за минусом членов ВКП (б);

16. Потери членов ВЛКСМ в ВС СССР за 1941-45 гг. (погибшие, пропавшие без вести, дезертиры, прочие причины): 8 230 542 - 2 400 000 - 700 000 = 5 130 542 разница строк 13, 14, 15

17. Всего ресурс членов ВКП (б) и ВЛКСМ в ВС СССР в 1941-45 гг.: 8 063 000 + 8 230 542 = 16 293 542 сумма строк 4, 13

18. Всего безвозвратные потери членов ВКП (б) и ВЛКСМ в ВС СССР в 1941-45 гг. (погибшие, пропавшие без вести, дезертиры, прочие причины): 4 139 000 + 5 130 542 = 9 269 542 сумма строк 7, 16

19. Всего потери членов ВКП (б) и ВЛКСМ в % от их ресурса 56,9 % частное строк 18, 17

И.Ивлев, (Опубликовано в журнале "Военно-исторический архив", 2012, №9, с. 41-58) Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Ivlev synthesized these figures cobbled together from various sources as part of this argument that the USSR lost 42 million in the war. Deomoscope is merely the website where the article the Lies of the General was published, Deomoscope is not the source, Ivlev is in fact our source. Scholars believe that Ivlev's figures are without serious foundation. But I do not think 9 000 or 10 000 is a representative figure. 16 000 000 really is. Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Do not have seven Fridays in the week!

The situation you have created is called ‘to have seven Fridays in the week’. The phrase describes an inconstant person that often changes his decisions, comes back on his words, doesn’t fulfill his promises and so on. https://ochenporusski.com/seven-fridays-in-the-week/#J9RTiqrfZv9ZMQp0.99

The same demographic site Demoscope Weekly, the same WWII casualties, he same editor, the same or almost the same sources are reliable in the same article in case of Savchenko and unreliable in case of Ivlev, although in Ivlev's case they have come above all through Glavlit or the Soviet censorship authority. Though Savchenko's calcucations are much more complicated than Ivlev's 4 + 5 = 9. And the first figure correlates with Joseph Stalin's statement on party's losses!

By the way Russian archaeologists also question Ivlev's figures of military casualties. They keep excavating 8 Soviet servicemen per 1 German, which correlation brings Soviet military losses way bigger than 30 million as German losses are known exactly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.84.173 (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC) |}

References

Material removed

I've removed the content that has already been challenged in the sections above. Preserving here by providing this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

To dispute means to pruduce arguments, not childish likes and dislikes

Kindly begin a real discussion. You have not mentioned a single disputed statement. Looking forward to your arguments, Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing - persistent addition of unreliably sourced information?

Dear gentlemen K.e.coffman and Woogie10w,

Russian demographic site Demoscope Weekly was cited by the English WP for 4 200 times by January 1, 2017. You seem to be the first editors who tend to view it as unreliable source.

4 200 editors are wrong, but you two are right. Are you fooling around or are you working out fees for serving as watch dogs of fraudulent Russian generals? In both cases I don't want to cooperate with you any longer.

Keep fooling your readeкs yourselves without me. Your editing is really disruptive,

Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Not correct Demoscope Weekly is the website that pubilshed the unreliable source Igor Ivlev's, The Lies of the General. Demoscope Weekly does not turn Igor Ivlev into a reliable source--Woogie10w (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• After some 50 years and written memoirs on how his company was making a database on war losses for the Russian Defence Ministry he'll probably become a source, but not now. One of Ivlev's demographic figure questioned by Mark Harrison had very simple explanation. Look

Убыль населения рассчитана, исходя из официальных цифр его наличия на крайние даты периода с учётом утрат детей, родившихся после начала войны. Из таблицы 1 следует, что разница между общей численностью утрат граждан СССР (38,5 млн чел.) и неоспоримой численностью потерь гражданского населения (почти 18 млн чел.), составляет 20,5 млн чел. потерь военнослужащих Вооружённых Сил СССР (далее ВС СССР), а не 8,7 млн чел., как пытается уже более 20 лет доказать Минобороны.

If the figure of civil losses is really 18 million, it includes those who died of natural reasons as well. In this case no extra deduction of 11.9 million is justified as such thing makes a double-counting and the researcher is right in his calculations. But of course he should not double-count servicemen in the census figures.

Demographers found out that mortality of males in the rear was higher than on the battlefields

Demographers ADKh did not object the military losses data by General Krivosheev. However, the data of their Table 35 clearly put this number into doubt. Look

Excessive Mortality of Soviet men in 1941–1945
34.4 million servicemen	23 million male civilians 18—55 years old
8.7 million	8 million
25 %	35 %

Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)109.252.84.173 (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Now You Have Good Opportunities to Discuss Sources and Estimates of this Table. Do not Mistake One for Onother, as in the Article: See Estimates and their sources

Group/Total Strength	On June 22,1941	Drafted	Joined Party in Armed Forсes	Joined Party from Komsomol	Left Komsomol by Age	Commissioned as Disabled	Remained in Armed Forces	Military Losses	Sources and Estimates
Communists 8,063,000	563,000*	1,500,000**	6,000,000***	—	—	600,000****	3,324,000*****	4,139,000 (killed, MIA, deserters, other reasons)	*ЭВОВ-352, **СОВОВ-955, ***СОВОВ-956, ****"ВОВ Сов. Союза 1941-45 гг.", М.: Воениздат, 1965, с. 589, *****ЭВОВ-360
Komsomol members 8,230,542	2,000,000*	3,500,000*	5,000,000**	1,769,458***	500,000****	700,000*****	2,400,000******	5,130,542 (killed, MIA, deserters, other reasons)	*СВЭ-2-401, ЭВОВ-186, **СВЭ-2-401, ЭВОВ-187, ***СВЭ-2-401, ИВОВ-6-367,******"Великая победа советского народа 1941-1945", М.: Наука, 1976, с. 124
Communists and Komsomol members 16,293,542	2,563,000	5,000,000	11,000,000	—	—	1,300,000	5,724,000	9,269,542 (common losses of both groups or 56,9 per cent of their total draft)	****Estimates by Igor Ivlev by strength of Komsomol members of 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916 years of birth in the Armed Forces, *****Estimates by Igor Ivlev by the total number of disabled (3,465,100) with percentage of the party and Komsomol members in the Armed Forces (excluding Communists)

Abbriviations: ЭВОВ —  Энциклопедия "Великая Отечественная война 1941-45 гг." (The Great Patriotic War of 1941—45 Encyclopedia), М.: Советская энциклопедия, 1985 г.; ИВОВ — "История Великой Отечественной войны Советского Союза 1941—1945 гг." (History of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union of 1941—1945), М.: Воениздат, 1961—65 гг.; СОВОВ — "Стратегический очерк Великой Отечественной войны 1941—1945 гг." (Strategic Essay of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945), М.: Воениздат, 1961. Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 09:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If you don't like Igor Ivlev delete his estimates and add 1,8 million to losses of both groups. Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)