Talk:World War II casualties

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the World War II casualties article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
World War II casualties was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: August 27, 2007
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Wrong flag in the casualties chart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_War_II_Casualties.svg This chart displays the chinese communist flag. During WW2, most of the fighting were done by the nationalists, not the communists. I request that the inaccurate red flag shall be replaced by the nationalist one. - 22:19 GMT 1+ May 8th 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.59.168 (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the WWII-era Chinese flag. Can anyone please assist? TheShadowed (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks everyone - fixed and refreshed! TheShadowed (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US Casualties

Of 1.2 million African-Americans, even if you assume the vast majority of the were employed in a supply/service role, how could only 708 of them have died? I'm willing to bet that many blacks died in the Battle of the Bulge alone. Where is the source for this? 69.221.218.126 19:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael Clodfelter. Warfare and Armed Conflicts- A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 1500-2000. 2nd Ed. 2002 ISBN 0-7864-1204-6.Pages 584-85--Woogie10w 22:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

In the Pacific theater, General Macarthur gave orders to count every third dead, at least in some battles (Okinawa and Iwo Jima?), in order to keep up morale. I have not been able to figure out whether the US totals are accurate numbers or whether they are based on Macarthur's reduced totals. I would appreciate it if someone could clarify that point on the page. 75.62.27.14 (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Jim Bowman

Howdy Jim, I am from Missouri, you have got to show me. Please provide a verifiable source for Macarthur's orders to count every third dead.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] black

Does the German death rate need to be pitch black in the graph? As if all the soldiers that were essentially forced to fight were part of the SS or SD. It just gives the impression of them being the bad guys, which of course they were, but not the ordinary soldiers.Sikkema 00:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The Waffen SS drafted men starting in 1943. In eastern Europe the SS conscriped the ethnic German men who had never set foot in Germany. The Waffen SS was not an all volunteer force after the fall of Stalingrad.--Woogie10w 01:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Complaining that Germany is colored black? sounds a little paranoid to me.--The Gillotine (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finlands losses

Dear Sir,

You have asked some information concerning the number of deaths in
Finnland during the WW II.

Based on the World War II database we have found follofing numbers
concerning the Finnish soldiers (include also the soldiers who died to
the diseases):
year 1939 5681
year 1940 21082
year 1941 27023
year 1942 9743
year 1943 6180
year 1944 22777
year 1945 140

Sincerely Yours

Mikko Karjalainen

M.A.
Archivist
Military Archives
--Woogie10w 17:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correction Marine Corps

Thank you Falcon 4--Woogie10w 01:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Casualties by branch of service" section

The figures for China and -- to a lesser degree --- France wouldf make interseting reading, if they are available. Grant | Talk 07:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The figure for China of 3 million military dead is an estimate by John Dower. R.J. Rummel has listed various sources for military losses in his book China's Bloody Century, he estimates military losses at 3.4 million including puppet troops. The Chinese Nationalist government published an official history in English that is a whitewash of Chaing's brutality and incompetence, they claim imaginary victories and unbelievable Japanese losses, their statistics for Nationalist casualties lack credibility because they are unbelievably low, 1.3 million KIA. The fact of the matter is that millions were killed by Chaing's goons becuase they opposed his regime. The losses of China are a topic that needs serious research, in the meantime I believe Dower's estimate is the best we have--Woogie10w 17:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

I have yet to see an official breakdown of French losses by branch of service. The following link has some interesting data from various sources that is contradictory [1]--Woogie10w 17:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)In 1978 the French government's section for vetrans affairs stated that they did not have official statistics on human losses in the war. The French government has an on line listing of WW 1 dead that can be searched by name and they promise one for WW2 in the future. In any case if you are in Paris check out the Army and Navy museums, they are excellant. The French role in both world wars is covered in detail. The French tank museum in Samur is real cool, it beats Aberdeen any day [2].--Woogie10w 18:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] newfoundland is not a country

why is newfoundland listed here? it is just a part of canada -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.7.212 (talk • contribs)

It wasn't part of Canada until after WW2. It was the Dominion of Newfoundland between 1907 and 1934, and it was a British crown colony separate from Canada in 1934-49. Grant | Talk 03:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It is totally laughable to underestimate the casualies of China

The Japanese and Chinese fought from 1931 Mukden Incident to 1945 the most long for all the WWII relating countries,in the area of most populated in the world.Someone onlookers just dream up a number of casualies,and what is the sources for this number? Are the sources from which these men estimate the nunber primary one or secondary one or tertiary one?--Ksyrie 00:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war over chinese casualties

I've protected the page from editing since it's being reverted back and forth. Please discuss here. Shanes 22:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder whether he or she will accpet the balanced view from one of the most suffered country in the WWII.It's funny to use some scholar sources from the other side of Pacific.It is just like someone using a telescope to report the panoramic view of deluge.--Ksyrie 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I just sent a E-Mail to a Prof. Stephen Phillips who teaches East Asian history asking him for sources that will clear up the issue of Chinese losses, hopefully he can point us in the right direction. In any case I want to get the number right, I do not care if it is 10 or 35 million--Woogie10w 23:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I never really thought about the war in asia before the U.S. got in. You never hear about it. I was completely blown away by the number of chinese deaths. --The Gillotine (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation of the material posted in Chinese today

Please provide a translation into English for the readers. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.--Woogie10w 00:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

GOOGLE did the translation for us for free, gee thanks GOOGLE. They know there are folks out there from Missouri like me who need things to be be shown to them.

China's resistance direct estimates of the population losses for a total of 20.62 million people, the disabled population cumulative direct a war, military and civilian casualties to a minimum 34.8 million; Meanwhile, we believe that China's resistance in the 41 million total population of direct casualties, missing with wartime figures captured in 2001, war directly caused the death, disability and loss of a total population of more than 45 million missing in 2001; From the perspective of population loss, the total loss in the period of the War of Resistance against Japan in China 50 million people.

The Chinese article said 20.62 million dead, 34.8 million casualties disabled. Total population loss of 50 million means dead plus children not born because of the war. The number of 20,62 million is close to R.J. Rummel's 19.6 million which includes 5.9 million killed by the Nationalists and 2.5 million in floods and famines. Not a word about 11.4 million dead military, I wonder where that statistic came from.
--Woogie10w 02:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Chinese casualties- FROM WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON SINO_JAPANESE WAR

  • The Kuomintang fought in 22 major engagements, most of which involved more than 100,000 troops on both sides, 1,171 minor engagements most of which involved more than 50,000 troops on both sides, and 38,931 skirmishes.
  • The Chinese lost approximately 3.22 million soldiers. 9.13 million civilians died in the crossfire, and another 8.4 million as non-military casualties. According to historian Mitsuyoshi Himeta, at least 2.7 million civilians died during the "kill all, steal all, burn all" operation (sanko sakusen) implemented in May 1942 in North China by general Yasuji Okamura and authorized on 3 December 1941 by Imperial Headquarter Order number 575.[1]

Some Chinese historians claimed the total military and non-military deaths of the Chinese were at most 35 million. Most Western historians believed that the casualties were at least 20 million. Property loss of the Chinese valued up to 383,301.3 million US dollars according to the currency exchange rate in July 1937, roughly 50 times of the GDP of Japan at that time (7,700 million US dollars). [citation needed]

  • In addition, the war created 95 million refugees.--Woogie10w 10:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this is reasonable--Woogie10w 10:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Official Chinese sources confirm that the figure of 35 million includes dead as well as wounded. The WW 2 Casualties page does not include statistics of wounded ,only war dead[3][4][5]

[edit] Hungarian Jewish Losses

According to every history source I've read around 400.000-450.000 Hungarian jews were killed during World War II. In this table they are "only" said to have been 200.000. This is surely wrong and should be corrected. (ISCO) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.105.225.75 (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

The Holocaust losses listed here are for Hungary in 1939 borders, they do not include the losses from the annexed territories which are listed with Romania (105,000) and Czechoslvakia (100,000).The table is correct--Woogie10w 01:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
On Page 244 of Martin Gilberts Atlas of the Holocaust there is a map that has a geographic breakdown of Hungarian Holocaust losses.--Woogie10w 10:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{rewrite}}

I think this article needs to be re-written so it is not just a list of stats. A section should consist of more than just a table or chart, it should have some text in paragraph form introducing it. Currently, it doesn't read like an encyclopedia article but like a list of facts and figures. I've tried adding {{rewrite}}, but it keeps being removed. Anon 22:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The footnotes provide a narrative and list the sources of the statistics. There are links there to the background to the stats. Take the time and read the footnotes.--Woogie10w 23:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at the footnotes. I'm saying they should be worked into the article instead of being small and at the bottom. I've never questioned the stats, I've only requested the article be copyedited to improve its readability. Anon 23:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Total Casualties

Jesus, this is a horrible discussion... Sikkema 00:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't add up... We keep saying over 72 million people died, and I noticed in several parts of the article there are stats on how many people died, but because all figures on the casualties in WWII are estimates, (and I've heard from many different sources on different figures of how many people died, all different) it would be better to say over 60 million people died. If you look at some of the other WWII articles they have different figures... the German one says 55-60 million people died, French says 62 million, Italian says 62 million, Spanish says 72, Polish and Dutch 62, and so on.--LtWinters 22:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The Total is over 70 million when one takes into account the millions of civilians that died of famine and disease caused by the war in Asia and the USSR.--Woogie10w 01:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
But lots of people want a source. I think the root of the problem is that a lot of different sources are being used to draw up a summed total, but there may be some inflation in some cases, or even overlap and duplication. In such a case, a more conservative estimate might be better. This site gives a grand total of about 15 million military deaths, and 26 million civilian deaths, 31 million total, quite conservative. Another site yields 6.3 million Axis military deaths/MIA, almost 12 million Allied military deaths/MIA (18 million, versus the previous 15 million), 3 million Axis civilian deaths, and 32.8 million Allied civilian deaths (35.8 versus the previous 26), and a final grand total of 53.8 million deaths (something most people would accept as approximately realistic). A third website does a poor job of breaking down military versus civilian, but yields a grand total in the neighborhood of 54 million. To finish datamining the first 10 Google results ("casualties of ww2"), this site tallies nearly 6 million Axis military deaths, 18.5 million Allied military deaths (24.5 million total military deaths), 5 million Axis civilian deaths, 25.4 million Allied civilian deaths (30.4 million total civilian deaths), and 54.9 million total deaths. I'll be able to build a ballpark soon, will anyone join me? In the end, I found this site, which does a quite extensive breakdown, as well as providing a printed book source: World War Two Nation by Nation (J. Lee Ready - Published by Arms and Armour - ISBN 1-85409-290-1); 55.4 million total deaths.
Yeah, I think 55 million is the best rangeless ballpark figure we can get. Does anybody else agree? I almost started editing the article to work with 55 million, until I noticed the giant table with lots and lots of footnotes, and the summed 72 million figure at the bottom. I wonder if the Chinese and Russian totals are really accurate, or possibly inflated (comprising of 59.7% of the total deaths), making 72 million possible original research. Xaxafrad 23:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Note well those sites you refer to do not cite sources for their figures, they expect you to accept the data on faith. The J. Lee Ready table does not list sources and is worthless. To copy the numbers from website that does not list sources is unacceptable. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. The giant table you refer to is backed up with sources that can be verified. In the case of the USSR the figure is from the Russian Academy of Science report of 1992( 26.6 million less 3.3 million for the territories annexed in 1939-40 which are listed with Poland, the Baltic States and Rumania. Read the footnotes and check the sources cited, the figure of roughly 72 million is indeed accruate.--Woogie10w 01:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The total losses on this page were 62 million until a month ago when a user from China posted material from the China Academy of Science that listed 20 million war dead, previously 10 million had been posted. See the posting above on Chinese casualties. The millions that died of war induced famine in Asia and the USSR were war casualties and must be included in the total.--Woogie10w 02:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Was that oberiko or something? I came across that and I never noticed it before and I actually left a comment on his page saying they should be considered major allies because of that... but yeah now that I think of it that is way high. And as many other times it's been mentioned, 72 is way, way too high. This is the only source I've ever seen saying over 65 million. Does anyone have a single source besides this saying there is over 65 million? --LtWinters 02:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We need to analyze J. Lee Ready's numbers line by line. Do his figures have credibility? Lets not jump to conclusions, lets aim to get the correct information and back it up with verifiable sources.--Woogie10w 11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware of the poor sourcing associated with a random sampling of web material from Google, and wasn't suggesting overturning anything. However, unless a source can be found that says 72 million, perhaps a really big set of parenthesis should be placed next to that number. Does anyone know any good templates? Xaxafrad 00:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we can mention that millions perished in war related famines in addition to those killed directly in the war. You are right, people need an explanation for the total of 72 million.--Woogie10w 01:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


Brew up some coffee, I prefer mine strong and black without sugar. Then read through the J Lee Ready website numbers and compare it to the data posted here. The total of 72 million is correct, the sources back the numbers up. All I did was add them down, thats first grade math, 72 million--Woogie10w 00:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The big differences are in Asia. China, Indonesia, Malaya, Burma and Vietnam lost about 20 million due to famine. The Japanese confiscated the grain and rice and the population starved. These losses are war related and must be included in the total. --Woogie10w 00:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so youre saying published works, which takes years to make, contain information which is wrong, because they have a fact and we have a different fact and you are saying our fact is right. Well, it seems a bit odd that our estimate is way over the other 20 billion sources that say less than 65 million died. Maybe they already included the fact that 20 million Asians died. --LtWinters 00:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that the civilian victims in Asia should be excluded? Take China for example, it would be reasonable to believe the China Academy of Science when they report 4% of the population(20 million)killed during 8 years of Japanese occupation, the UN reported 4 million Indonesians dead caused by the war induced famine, the French reported 1 million dead in the 1945 Indochina famine. These sources are official, not an estimate by one individual. I suspect racism may be the reason why Asian civilian war victims are ignorned by western historians. The 7 million famine victims are included in USSR total, the Polish war dead include deaths caused by famine during the German occupation, these deaths are never questioned and included with war dead. The victims in Asia also deserve to be included in total casualties--Woogie10w 00:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think to solve the source problem would be to get 3 sources for each fact to agree on the fact, and then put them as footnotes... and this will take a long time, but we want an article that is 100% factual. --LtWinters 23:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Three sources that are incorrect are worthless, a perfect example would be three sources that list Germany losing 3.2 million soldiers in WW2. There are more than three sources that list 3.2 million German war dead, they are all 100% wrong. Overmans has proved this to be false, he should be used as the source. Another example would be UK casualties in WW2, the data from 1945 listed 264,000 dead, this is wrong, but you can find this worthless statistic in more than three sources. The CWGC has lists 383,000 UK war dead, it should be listed as the source. Three wrong numbers in the footnotes are unacceptable.--Woogie10w 00:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Other pages on Wikipedia back up the numbers on the WW2 Casualties page
Japanese occupation of Indonesia 4 million civilian deaths
Vietnamese Famine of 1945 1 million civilian deaths
Second Sino-Japanese War 20 million total deaths
Sook Ching massacre 50,000 killed
Bengal famine of 1943 over 1.5 million dead
Manila massacre over 100,000 killed

There is no way that that you will be abel to plug 55 million on the page without excluding these war dead in Asia.--Woogie10w 01:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC) To get that number down to 55 million you will need to prove that Asian famine victims are not war related. China 10 million, Indonesia 4 million, India 1.5 million and Indochina 1 million. The other Wikipedia pages I listed above back up the fact that the numbers are correct and that the deaths are war related--Woogie10w 12:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm pretty sure 3 wrong sources are better than 1. --LtWinters 02:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Three wrongs dont equal a right. The best example would be German military casualties. Overmans published a study in 2000 that proved losses were 5.3 million rather than 3.2 million, yet there are plenty of sources that still list 3.2 million German military dead, a worthless statistic from 1949.
Anyway your objective to is force a number of 55 million on the page, in order to plug that 55 million means that you must exclude the Asian famine victims. This is unacceptable even though there are plenty of sources out there that dont't list them--Woogie10w 09:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

My goal is not to say half the people did not die, and why do you think I am directing that towards the Asian casualties, and not something for the other nations? Just answer me this- with a yes or no, not a 50 paragraph essay- do you think that this article would be more verifiable if there were 3 wrong sources than 1 wrong?

OK, Please, tell me what number you think is wrong. We need to get the numbers right. You tell me what you believe is the correct statistic and give a source. Then let the real discussion begin. My dad who was a WW2 vet, would have said "shit or get off the pot"--Woogie10w 22:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Some are wrong, some are not. The reason I am suggesting 3 sources for each fact is that because every figure on the amount of people who died is an estimate, right? Well then if 3 respectable sources say the same thing, then it is going to be in a close ballpark to the real thing and it would be better respected. I understand for instance, that you feel that many Asians died in WWII and more than that western historians say, (I'm not disagreeing with you), and when I look in WWII for Dummies, it says 15-22 million Chinese died, but it says for nearly every other estimate something different. It says Italy lost less (than what Wikipedia says) by about 130,000, Germany less by about 1.5 million, USSR more by about 2 million, Greece more by about 200,000, Canada less by about 10,000, Australia 17,000 in combat related causes, and so on. So by having 3 respectable sources, then it would at least serve as a base of our facts. --LtWinters 02:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

World War Two for Dummies would make this page look foolish if it were cited as a source. We need one source that is preferably primary and official.
CHINA last month a guy from China raised the issue and posted data from the China Academy of Science that listed 20 million, a source in English published by Yale backs the number up.
Italy official Italian gov data is used, read the footnote on Italy.
GermanyThe German Army study by Overmans in 2000 concluded that losses were 5.3 million, not including 200,000 Soviets in the Wehrmacht. Actual civilian losses were 1.1 million killed in the Soviet invasion and expulsions (Overmans is the source of this statistic), 370,000 killed in the bombings( recent data from Germany cited in footnotes)and 500,000 by the Nazis(Source R J Rummel). Total 2 million Civilians and 5.5 million soldiers. Overmans is a well known and respected historian. He is a Col in the German Army and teaches at a German University.[6]
Greece the data here is from Fromkin a reseacher who worked for the UN who published a study of WW2 casualties in Europe. This is cited in the footnotes.
USSRThe Russian Academy of Science in 1992 said 26.6 million, including 3.3 million in the territories annexed from Poland, Rumania and the Baltic States. The total for the USSR less these annexed territories is 23 million. The losses in annexed territories are included with Poland, Rumania and the Baltic states.
Canada and Australia the CWGC is the source of the data. This is official government data that you can verifiy by viewing their annual report on line.

This is why we should strive to post the correct number. If you feel a number is wrong please post your arguments here. We need to get these numbers right. --Woogie10w 08:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right that it would cetainly look foolish as a title, which is why I would suggest using the direct source it came from and not from the book. The author is Keith Dickson, an associate professor of military studiea at joint forces staff college, national defense university, is a lt.col. (if this makes those figures more verifiable). I am not suggesting we use sites from that- I was simply trying to point out that all sources differ. If I do see a fact I disagree with, I will bring it up. --LtWinters 11:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J Lee Ready's Numbers Line by Line

Albania- He says " Unknown"- The US government country study of Albania lists 28,000. Lets keep the US Government report as the source
Austria-I guess he includes Austria with Germany.
Australia- He says 31,200. The Commonwealth War Graves Comm and Australian gov list 40,500. Lets keep the CWGC and Australian Gov data as the source
Belgium- He says 95,596. That's close to the Fromkin total of 88,100. However he includes 11,000 in the German Army.
Brazil-He forgot to list the civilian and Merchant Marine losses of 1,000. They must be included in the total
Bulgaria- He lists 56,000 including 40,000 killed by the Soviets after the war. Lets list only WW2 Casualties on the page
Burma-He forgot to list the Burmese 272,000 killed under the Japanese occupation. They deserve to be included in the total
Canada He says 39,219. The Commonwealth War Graves Comm and Canadian gov list 45,000. Lets keep the CWGC and Canada Gov data as the source
China-He says 13,500,000. The conclusion of the revert war a month ago was to post the Chinese Academy of Science data(translated by Google) that losses were 20 million. Lets keep the data aggreeded upon last month
Cuba-He forgot to include the Cubans killed in U Boat attacks
Czechoslovakia- He forgot to include the 345,000 Czechoslovak war dead, 10,000 soldiers were killed fighting with the Allies
Denmark- He includes 4,000 in the German Army
Ethiopia-He forgot to include the Ethiopians killed during the Italian Occupation
Estonia-He lists 73,000. Russian data from 2004 lists 41,000.
Finland He lists 85,000. The Finnish government says 97,000.Lets keep the Gov as the source
France- He lists 519,000 including 19,500 in the German Army. I would like to see the source of his data. There is no official French data, only general estimates. Fromkin is posted here
French Indochina- He forgot to list the 1 million dead in the Vietnamese Famine of 1945 caused by World War 2.
Germany-He says 6.6 million including 3.3 million military. The German Army study by Overmans in 2000 concluded that losses were 5.3 million, not including 200,000 Soviets in the Wehrmacht. The civilian losses of 3 million that Ready lists include military dead that are in the Overmans report of military casualties. Actual civilian losses were 1.1 million killed in the Soviet invasion and expulsions (Overmans is the source of this statistic), 370,000 killed in the bombings( recent data from Germany)and 500,000 by the Nazis. Total 2 million Civilians and 5.5 million soldiers. Overmans is a well known and respected historian. He is a Col in the German Army and teaches at a German University.
Greece-He says 503,200. Research by Fromkin who worked for the UN concluded losses were 300,000. The issue is how many died in the Famine.
Hungary- He says 633,000. This is close to the estimate of 580,000 by Tomas Stark of the Hungarian Academy of Science. However, Stark lists 300,000 military dead compared to his 237,000
Iceland-He says Unknown. A Wikipidian from Iceland gave us data on 200 civilians killed by the U-Boats.
India- He says 36,092 allied soldiers killed. The Commonwealth War Graves Comm lists 87,000. Lets keep the CWGC data as the source. He was correct in listing the 1.5 million civilians killed in the Bengal Famine
Indonesia-He forgot to list the 4 million dead during the Japanese occupation. This statistic comes from a UN report cited by John W. Dower
Iran-He forgot to list the losses in the 1941 UK occupation of the country
Iraq-He forgot to list the losses in the 1941 UK occupation of the country
Ireland-He forgot to list the civilian losses in U Boat attacks and accidental bombings of Ireland
Italy-He says 483,000. The official Italian gov data lists 445,000 not including 15,000 Africans fighting for Italy.
Japan-He says 2.319 million. He forgot to list the 160,000 civilians killed on Okinawa and 27,000 merchant Marine
Korea-He forgot to list the 70,000 dead during the Japanese occupation. This statistic comes from John W. Dower
Latvia-He forgot to list the 227,000 Latvian war dead
Lithuania-He forgot to list the 353,000 Lithunian war dead
Luxembourg- He lists 4,000 killed in the German Army
Malaya-He forgot to list the 150,000 dead during the Japanese occupation. This statistic comes from John W. Dower
Malta-He forgot to list the 1,500 Maltese killed in the Axis air raids
Mexico-He forgot to include the Mexicans killed in U Boat attacks
Mongolia-He forgot to include the Mongolian losses in the 1939 & 1945 campaigns against Japan
Netherlands He lists 10,000 killed in the German Army
Newfoundland- was a dominion during the war, not part of Canada. These losses should be listed on a separate line
New Zealand-He says 13,075. The Commonwealth War Graves Comm and New Zeland gov list 11,900. Lets keep the CWGC and New Zeland Gov data as the source
Norway-He lists 3,024 killed in the German Army. This does not agree with Norwegian gov data that lists 700 dead in German forces. Philippines-He forgot to list the 147,000 dead during the Japanese occupation
Pacific Island-He forgot to list the 57,000 dead during the Japanese occupation
Poland-He lists 5,876 million. I would like to see the source of his data. In any case a well known Polish American historian Ted Piotrowski lists 5.6 million, it is posted here.
Port Timor-He forgot to list the 55,000 dead during the Japanese occupation
Romania- He lists 906,000 including 75,000 in the Soviet occupation. I would like to see the source of his data. I could be correct, but we need the original source before posting.
Singapore-He forgot to list the 50,000 dead during the Japanese occuption
South Africa He says 3,863 The Commonwealth War Graves Comm lists 11,900. Lets keep the CWGC data as the source.
USSR- He says 21.2 million. The Russian Academy of Science in 1992 said 26.6 million, including 3.3 million in the territories annexed from Poland, Rumania and the Baltic States. The total for the USSR less these annexed territories is 23 million. The losses in annexed territories are included with Poland, Rumania and the Baltic states
Spain-He forgot the losses of the Spanish forces fighting on the eastern front
Switzerland-He forgot the losses due to accidental US bombing
Thailand- He said Unknown, a Wikipedian from Thailand gave us the necessary data.
UK- He says 363,000. The Commonwealth War Graves Comm lists 453,000. Lets keep the CWGC data as the source.
USA- He forgot to list the 9,512 brave US Merchant Mariners who gave their lives in the war.
Yugoslavia- He forgot the 1 million Yugoslav war dead.
Now one can see why 72 million is correct and makes sense. The guy with the skull and crossbones on his webpage forgot a lot--Woogie10w 00:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table

why does the table in Casualties by branch of service list both percent dead and deaths per 1000. Seems pretty pointless to me 212.140.167.99 19:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War Related Famine Deaths are Well Documented

USSR- War related famine deaths totaled about 7 million according to a report published by the Russian Academy of Science -Rossiiskaia Akademiia nauk. Liudskie poteri SSSR v period vtoroi mirovoi voiny:sbornik statei. Sankt-Peterburg 1995 ISBN 5-86789-023-6 This report reflects the research done after the fall of the Communists, also see Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5-93165-107-1 This is a Russian language handbook on statistics of wars and atrocities of the 20th cent. Erlikman is an anti-Communist who does not apoligize for Stalins crimes. His data is mostly from Soviet and Russian sources, but he has a critical eye.

Second Sino-Japanese War- Famine and war related floods that killed 8 million are well documented in R. J. Rummel. China's Bloody Century . Transaction 1991 ISBN 0-88738-417-X Ho Ping-ti. Studies on the Population of China, 1368-1953. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959. He used data from Chinese Nationalist sources

Japanese occupation of Indonesia 4 million civilian deaths are listed in a UN report cited in- John W. Dower War Without Mercy 1986 ISBN 0-394-75172-8 Dower quotes from an official UN document, case closed

Vietnamese Famine of 1945 1 million civilian deaths are documented in John W. Dower War Without Mercy 1986 ISBN 0-394-75172-8 Click on the Wikipedia link for furthur details

Bengal famine of 1943 over 1.5 million dead are documented in John W. Dower War Without Mercy 1986 ISBN 0-394-75172-8 Click on the Wikipedia link for furthur details

Axis occupation of Greece during World War II. 140,000 war related famine deaths are listed in Gregory, Frumkin. Population Changes in Europe Since 1939, Geneva 1951. Frumkin was a researcher for the UN Click on the Wikipedia link for furthur details


Dutch famine of 1944 Documented in -STEIN, Z. (1975). Famine and human development : the Dutch hunger winter of 1944-1945. New York, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-195-01811-7 Click on the Wikipedia link for furthur details
--Woogie10w 16:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have other sources which back up each of those figures? With respect, --LtWinters 23:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have plenty of stats on WW2 if you need any help let me know.--Woogie10w 00:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Also I must point out that the current official data from Putin's Russia lists 26.6 million dead in the war including 8.6 million soldiers, 13.7 million civilians in German occupiied territory ( 7.4 million executed, 1.8 million killed in Germany and 4.5 million famine dead), there were an additional 3 million famine victims and an 1.3 million increase in infant mortality in the zone not occupied by Germnany. The loss of 26.6 million is a computed demographic loss based on an an analysis of the population from 1939-1959 by the Russian Academy of Science .The official Russian data from 1995 lists 653,000 Gulag deaths
However the American researcher R. J. Rummel published in 1993 a study Lethel Politics that listed losses as 19.5 million due to the war ( 7.0 million soldiers in battle, 3.0 million POW and 9.5 million civili.ans killed by the Nazis). He also claims 10 million Soviets killed by the Communists. Total dead 29.5 million
--Woogie10w 00:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Although it's obviously a good source, I must point out that the USSR was not trustworthy back in WWII, and those statistics could be used as propaganda. Although you may argue that now it is a democracy and files have been declassified, well people are still being poisoned mysteriosly and to say the truth- I don't trust Russia. They've made up or lied about stuff in the past (i.e. Chernobyl, KGB), and I dunno if they're telling the truth about all their stuff. --LtWinters 13:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right when you say that the statistics are used as propaganda. That was the point of my remarks posted last night. The demographic data tells us that 26.6 million died in excess of the pre war level. That is a raw statistic that only tells us that 26.6 million died as a result of the war. Ivan could have starved to death in a German POW camp or could have starved in the Gulag for supporting the Nazis. In any case we still don't have a decent breakdown of these losses. The bottom line would not change, 26.6 million died in the USSR. The Russian Academy of Science said in 1995 that 7 million died of famine. Do you have a better source breaking out Soviet losses? --Woogie10w 14:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
In the footnote on Soviet casualties I listed military casualties from a Russian researcher Vadim Erlikman, he noted that POW deaths and MIA were undercounted in the official figures. The official Soviet/Russian figure of total POW/MIA deaths for the entire war is 1,783,000!! This way too low. Erlikman says it was 3.2 million; this agrees with most western sources. That is why I used Erlikman's data instead of the offical cover story.
The Soviet statistic of 26.6 million war dead includes the annexed territories, the Baltic States, and territories of Poland and Rumania. The US never recognized the seizure of the Baltic's and Poland insisted on counting losses inside of 1939 boundries. In order to avoid a double count we must subract the losses in the annexed territories ( about 3.3 million ) from the Soviet official total.
--Woogie10w 14:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You may ask how did the Russians derive the figure of 26.6 million. They took the 1959 Census Total of 209 million subtracted the births and added back the deaths from 1946-1958 to arrive at an estimated population of 175.5 million at the end of the war. The next step was to add births and subtract deaths from 1939-mid 1941 to the Census of 1939 -168.5- million. For an estimated population of 196.6 million in June 1941. The computers were put to work to calulate the hypothetical population growth (1941-45) based on estimated births during the war less deaths that would have occured if there were no war. The computer analyzed the population structure and estimated 26.6 million as the war loss. This is the scientific methodology used to determine those huge numbers on the table. There is no list of names like the ones that exist in the US and the Commonwealth. The Russian Academy of Science study from 1992 is our source for Soviet war dead. The study from 1995 I referred to is from a series of papers published by the Russian Academy of Science on Soviet war losses.--Woogie10w 19:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summing up estimates

All these numbers are estimates. We cannot add up estimates WITHOUT taking into account error margins and end up with meaningful results. When you add 1000000+-5% to 1000+-5% you'd better DISCARD the second number because it's totally lost in the error margin of the first number. And the main problem is -- we don't know those error margins. The only way to "quickfix" the main table is to specify a huge error margin on the total, like saying "over 60 millions" instead of "72,425,100". Three last digits of the total, for example, will make anyone with the slightest idea of how statistics work laugh. Still the table rows are very valuable, one just shouldn't add them up, they do not contain "numbers" in the exact sense. Alex Kapranoff 10:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It qiute clear that many of these figures are estimates and that the total is "about 72 million", we can only list the casualties from the sources and add down the numbers. To tweek the numbers and list our own estimates would be original research--Woogie10w 11:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not original research, because 90% of other sources say that it's a bit over 60 million. Technically, what we have is original research as well because we don't have a source backing up that 72 mill. I agree with Kapranoff. (my apologies, I'm not trying to sound rude)I see that you have been dominating the information that goes into this article, but right now in all fairness its 2 v 1 on changing that. So if no one comes to your aid for agreement, we'll put a note in there about this.--LtWinters 00:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
If you dispute a number of any one country please let us know, but you can't force 60 million on the bottom line because you think it's right. The sources here back up 72 million. Your "sources" are a list of numbers that add down to 55 million. The figures are not backed up with verifiable sources. The number gets bumped up to 72 million because of the 12 million war related famine deaths in Asia. In any case the reader is told that the numbers range from 50 to over 70 million and there is a link to the Matthew White list of casualty estimates.--Woogie10w 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that you read the footnotes and check the sources before you jump to conclusions. Take a trip to the library and check those sources, the figures are verifiable and they do add down to 72 million.--Woogie10w 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The range of estimates is made clear in the beginning of the article-World War II casualty statistics vary to a great extent. Estimates of World War II casualties range from 50 million to over 70 million[7]--Woogie10w 01:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The lists of casualties from secondary sources that add up to 55-60 million do not tell the reader the source of the data, they are secondary sources not primary, these lists are from the 1970-80's and do not reflect the recent historical research.--Woogie10w 01:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I took a look at the note how the estimates vary, and why ours varies. I think it's good now. --LtWinters 02:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Looks like there is a mistake in the number of Soviet military deaths.

Right there: The official recorded military war dead from 1941-45 were 8,668,400 comprising 6,329,600 combat related deaths, 555,500 non combat deaths.[7,85]., 500,000 missing in action and 1,283,300 POWs.[7,236]. It seems that someone had misread the official numbers, as presented in the Krivosheev's book. His statistics do not sepate missing in action from POWs. The table 120 in his book does not state 500.000 missing in action. This figure is a roughly estimate of the number of conscripted reservists, who were captured by advancing German troops before being listed on active strength.

So, total losses in all categories (including killed, died from wounds, missing and taken prisoner)by Krivosheev's count number 11,444,100. After subtracting those who turned up alive later, he came up with 8,668,400 dead, including 6,328,800 combat related deaths and 555,500 non combat related deaths and 1,784,700 of both missing in action and dead POWs. As most of the missing were taken prisoner, it was impossible to separate these categories.

This figure: The number of Soviet POW who survived the war was 2,776,000.[7,85] Is also seem to be incorrect. The number of POW surivors according to Krivosheev is 1836,000. 939,700 more were counted as missing at the beginning of the war, but were found to be alive, after the occupied USSR territory was liberated from Germans (either they laid low/joined partisans after their units were surrounded and crushed, or Germans let them go as during the first weeks of war, they sometimes allowed POWs from Ukrainia and Baltic Republics, to simply go home).

Turn to page 236.( pages 337-338 in Russian Ed. 1993) Krivosheev states " "thus a total of 4,059,000 Soviet servicemen were POW and about 500,000 were killed on the battlefield, although according to reports from the front they were listed as MIA." Kirvosheev lists 1,836,000 men returning from POW camps and 979,700 men who had been MIA or POW and redrafted after liberation. These 979,700 were were for the most part Soviets in German service, regarded by the Russians as tratiors to this day. In any case the math is clear, Kirvosheev lists total losses of 8,668,400. The total confirmed dead of 6.885 million in battle or non battle causes, That leaves 1,783 million dead POW or MIA. On page 236 Krivosheev estimates 500,000 MIA and killed in battle, that leaves us with 1.383 million total dead Soviet POW from 1941-45.--Woogie10w 11:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Kirvosheev lists 1,836,000 men returning from POW camps and 979,700 men who had been MIA or POW and redrafted after liberation. These 979,700 were were for the most part Soviets in German service, regarded by the Russians as tratiors to this day.
This is unsubstantiated. Krivosheev states the number of captured former Soviet soldiers who were sent to NKVD camps as suspected of tresason separately - 233,400.
That leaves 1,783 million dead POW or MIA. On page 236 Krivosheev estimates 500,000 MIA and killed in battle,
Not quite. He says that "about 450,000-500,000 were, in fact, killed, or left wounded on the battlefied that was captured by the enemy" (2001 edition, sorry, but as I use the net text from here http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_13_08.html right now, I cannot reference a page number - this phrase is in the fifth paragraph above table 175). And another point still stands - Krivosheev does include conscripts that were captured before arriving in their units in his count (though his numbers still might be incomplete for other reasons).
Krivosheev is whitewashing the fact that over 800,000 Soviet citizens served in Hitlers Army, the American author Michael Clodfelter notes that of the 5,734,000 Soviet POW " 818,000 were released to fight in German units or to work in Germnan factories. Another 1,053,000 survived ...in POW camps" Michael Clodfelter. Warfare and Armed Conflicts- A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 1500-2000. 2nd Ed. 2002 ISBN 0-7864-1204-6.
In any case Krivosheev wants us to believe that a total of 8,668,400 Soviet soldiers died in the war including 1,283,000 POW. In Russia today this is the official government version of events that covers up the huge losses in 1941. The statement by Marshal Konev in 1965 that the USSR lost 10 million soldiers in the war is closer to reality. The Germans rounded up all draft aged men and treated them as POW, the logic being that most draft aged men were in the reserves and were in fact called up in 1941. The true number of Soviet POW dead is not 1.3 million but about 2.5-3.0 million. It is such a coincidence that the total WW2 dead for the USSR according to Krivosheev is 8,668,400 million and the total losses for the Axis forces 8,649,500.--Woogie10w 13:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Totals don't match (Belgium is example)

I don't know what proper process is but I noted in reading the list of casualties that the footnotoes with details don't match the summary table. I don't mean just that the footnotes give specific numbers while the main table rounds to nearest hundred, I mean that the totals are wrong. Look at the Belgian civilian and holocaust numbers, they don't match.

The source for Belgium, Frumkin, lists War Losses of 88,000 on pages 44-45. The numbers tie out. Please check the source. --Woogie10w 10:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Who corrects, and can this be sanitized and checked? Tom

[edit] Title

A casualty is someone who is dead, wounded, missing, or a POW. We have this article listed as WWII Casualties, but there are no references to nations having wounded, missing, or POWs. This is why I suggest we change the name of this article to WWII Deaths, or something in that nature. --LtWinters 22:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I just took a peek at the WW2 article, in the "casualties" box only dead are listed. In Russia they would probably use " Human Losses in WW2" which is more accurate. In any case casualties in other wars are listed as "casualties", the title is just fine. Let me chill to XM82.--Woogie10w 01:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I agrew with lt, I would say I see how it can be kept as it is because it's expressing a part of the amount of casualties, and also should we want to change this I suggest we change the infoboxes first. --64.205.199.7 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Deaths

462,000? This is wrong. I've never read a source saying over 406,000 Americans have died. In the beginning of the source we got the stats from, it says 405,000 men died at Table 1. There is no other place in the source that says how they died or when they died. So where is the source saying how many people died in what way and in which part of the American Military? --LtWinters 13:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC) http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf is the source we are using. scroll down to table 1. --LtWinters 13:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the footnote, US combat casualties includes 1,917 Coast Guard deaths that are not in the DOD data, the Coast Guard data is from Clodfelter.--Woogie10w 16:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Where do we use the number 462.000? Shanes 14:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish & Non-Jewish Holocaust Victims Civilians (Goy/Schiksa :), Determining Nationality

While the table makes clear the Holocaust victims by country (assuming that the victims' country of origin, i.e., their "nationality," was used as the criterion for categorization, as opposed to where they were when they died), what I can't glean is whether those people are counted as "Axis Civilian Deaths" or "Allied Civilian Deaths." The same goes for occupied nations, since France was occupied for about 4 years and the ruling government (vs. that which was in exile), the Vichy Regime and the Occupational Authority, were Axis.

I suppose that I could add up the various entries in the table to arrive at the answer, but I was hoping for an easier solution to the question, as well as an explanation of which rationale was used and why. For example, if a German (Axis) citizen who was deported to a camp, say Auschwitz-Birkenau in Poland the Government of which is in exile but is Allied, where as the occupational authority and collaborational government is Axis, and the individuation in question was killed at that camp, does that count as an "Axis Civilian Death?" How about if a French-person was deported after the occupation began - would s/he be classified as an Axis or Allied Civilian at the time that he was deported? What if s/he was deported from France, during the occupation, to a death camp in German (true Axis) territory, but did not die until after France had been liberated and had a functional government running again (which happened shortly after liberation, upon the return of de Gaulle)? In the latter case s/he was deported from a country that was technically Axis, sent to a camp in another Axis country, but his country of origin then became Allied, only after which he was murdered. Or, what if an Italian was deported while Italy was still under Il Duce's control, but was not killed until after the Italian government overthrow was complete and Italy was no longer an Axis power - would that death be considered and Allied or Axis Civlian death? Similar questions would arise when considering a Lithuanian or Ukrainian who was deported after the occupation to a camp till on Soviet soil, but temporarily occupied by the Germans. In that case, the victim was a Soviet citizen from, say Lithuania, was rounded up and sent to a camp, say L'Viv in the Ukraine, where he was murdered, then how would that have been counted? Then there is the case of a group like the Roma (a.k.a. "Gypsies," although I believe that they consider that term to be pejorative, and prefer "Roma" instead, even though it's not a very specific term and as a distinct culture of people there are various sub-groups within the larger culture) who are nomadic in lifestyle and therefore travelled over borders often, were not necessarily registered as citizens of any nation since they lived outside of governmental administration, and may have been born in an Allied nation, been abducted from an Axis nation, and killed in yet another (say for the sake of argument an occupied Axis nation whose government in exile is Allied, as was the entire nation pre-war), how would their casualties be classified. Lastly, there is the case of deaths occurring during the war, "caused" by the war, but not being atttributable to enemy action. This doesn't fall in the nationality-classification issue/question, but it is relevant to an understanding of what exactly the numbers represent. Of course the main (and sort of the only, with some numerically minor exceptions) consideration here is the Soviet Union and Stalin's doctrines. Stalin's edicts basically condemned many people to death (imprisonment, harsh work details, starvation, police murders, summary justice, i.e., Nazi sympathisers/collaborators, etc.) People wouldn't have died in Stalingrad had he let the city be evacuated of civilians, for sure. There would have been less famine deaths, or deaths from over-work building defensive fortifications or doing labor for the military. Non-Soviet examples would include people who were citizens of France, Belgium, Holland, etc..., being killed by others citizens of those countries because they had been (or were occussed of having been) collaborators. There were many cases (though numerically "trivial" compared to the other examples being discussed here) of collaborators being vigilante-executed post-liberation by pre-VE day. How would those be classified? It's basically the same category as the Stalin questoin, namely, how do civilians who were killed in their home country by their own countrymen, intentionally (not friendly-fire accidents), not by enemy action, but as a result of circumstances created by the war, get classified?

I'm really not trying to be a pain in anyone's butt; I'm just curious how peoples' nationalities were identified if you will.

So, to summarize, here are the possible scenarios:

1) Citizen of an always Axis nation:

a) Killed in that nation, but by enemy action (Allied bombing) - obvious, the "base case"
b) Deported to a camp in an always Axis nation, dies there
c) Deported to a camp in an occupied nation, the exiled government of which is Allied, dies there
 c.1) Dies in the camp before the nation is liberated
 c.2) Dies, somehow war related, after the nation is liberated
d) Deported to a camp in a country part of which is occupied (Soviet Union), dies there before the Soviets reclaimed that territory

2) Citizen of a nation which is occupied by the Axis powers, the government of which is in exile and Allied (either was Allied before the occupation, such as France, or became allied after it was attacked, such as Russia, or after it was occupied, like Czechoslovakia or Poland):

a) Deported to a camp in an always Axis nation, like Bergen-Belsen, dies there
b) Deported to a camp in an occupied Allied nation (Poland, Czech, etc.), like Auschwitz-Bikenau, dies there
c) Deported to a camp in the same area, which may be part of a larger nation where only part of it is occupied by the Axis (Soviet Union is the only example that fits this scenario), like someone from the Ukraine being sent to L'Viv which is also in the Unkraine, and dies there
d) Scenarios b & c again, but only after their home country has been liberated (i.e., France gets occupied, a Frenchman gets sent to a camp in Poland, say Auschwitz, and dies there after France is liberated but before the camp was liberated)
e) Scenarios b & c again, but only after their home country has ceased being Axis (i.e., Italy, which was invaded AND had an internal power change)

3) Non-Citizens (basically, this category applies to the Roma nomadic people who often weren't part of official records, didn't have official citizenship in many or sometimes most cases, and who often crossed national boundaries; their national affliliation would have been more geographically based rather than geo-politically based)

4) People who died within their home country, by acts of their own governments or fellow citizens:

a) Killed by their government due to government policies that exist during times of war, which didn't exist pre-war - this is a "grey area" because in the case of the Soviet Union, many people died before and after the war, so, outside of direct enemy action, was the civilian death rate lower than during the war (again, OUTSIDE OF DIRECT ENEMY ACTION), or did Stalin just find other reasons to mass-murder his own people as soon as the war was over?
b) Killed by civilian mobs or even executed by legal courts while the war was still in progress for their actions earlier in the war (collaborators, etc...), or even civilians executed after the war by courts or by mobs; would they be counted as "war casualties?" since, even though the war was over, they were killed for their activities during the war and conducted those activities likely because of the conditions created by the war?

I think that those are basically all of the categories. To sum it up, what is the basis for determining someone's nationality at the time that s/he became a war casualty, and how do the changing borders and identification of the controlling regime affect that, if at all.

Sorry for the long post, but it can be confusing, and I wanted to be clear in order to get an answer that explains not just the numbers but the method used to arrive at them. Thanks. Srajan01 00:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust deaths here are from Martin Gilbert's Atlas of the Holocaust. Gilbert lists the deaths by place of residence in 1939. For example there were German Jews resident in France in 1939 who were later deported to Poland and killed, they are listed with French losses. The degree of detail you seek is not available. Losses in Germany, Poland and the USSR are based on demographic estimates that are detailed in the sources cited in the footnotes.--Woogie10w 02:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The methodology used to determine war losses in Europe is covered in , Gregory, Frumkin. Population Changes in Europe Since 1939, Geneva 1951 The book explains how the numbers are derived.--Woogie10w 02:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I don't have access to that reference

Could you please (just for my own edification) tell me if they counted internally murdered citizens (i.e., Jews of Germany killed in Germany by other Germans, or USSR civilians killed by Stalin as they were worked to death on earthworks, or Japanese-Americans who died in Internment Camps due to either the stress or lack of medical care) as "Civlian Casualties?" Also, is there any differentiation between people such as Japanese-Americans who were put in to their situation directly because of the war vs. Jews in Germany or peasants in Russia who would might have been killed anyway, regardless of the war? The same could be asked of military personnel, such as Stalin's purges, etc...

Adding in a brief section on the various classifications and calculation techniques might be a helpful addition to the section. Srajan01 16:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The way of grouping losses

I am aware that WWII, unlike WWI, saw many fluctuating alliances, and thus makes it difficult to compute, say. Romanian Axis deaths versus Romanian Allied deaths. But the idea of grouping every single country that at one time or another fought for both sides entirely in the Allied column makes no sense whatsoever. If we were to do that, what nations would we have? By my count: Germany, Hungary, Japan, the Manchurian and Outer Mongolian protectorates of the former, and others.

Now, make no mistake about this: I can understand, as a fellow historian, that grouping deaths via allegience is difficult in many conflicts, because you have Partisans, Rebels, Quislings, troops who remain loyal to one side even after there country defects (for instance, the Bulgarian 51st Division) etc. However, there are points where it makes no sense. The idea that we put the Romanian casualties that happened in their contributions at the Odessa campaign and the Stalingrad campaign, nearly half a million in these two battles alone, on the ALLIED side is quite misleading to put it VERY lightly.

It seems, and this is my own view, by all means correct me if I am wrong; but it seems that a smarter way, given the fact that it is damn-near impossible to determine things 100%, is, when the source of the casualties is uncertain, to group them in with the side they usually fought with (for instance, if we cannot determine if losses were sustained by the Romanians in the Axis or the Romanians in the Allies, we would group them in with the Axis pending a source to clear the matter up, for the Romanians fought primarily for the Axis, defecting when the Red Army began to retake ground.) ELV

[edit] Swedens Casualties

Would the anonymous user please give us the source of the data posted for Sweden's Merchant Naval losses. Only content with a verifiable source can be posted on Wikipedia.--Woogie10w 22:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This info should be included one way or antother. I don't have a source, but I know that neutral Swedish ships were sunk during the war.
Peter Isotalo 13:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, that's the rule at Wikipedia. We can't make up the numbers. I posted an inquiry to Swedish Wikipedia but yet to have an answer.--Woogie10w 16:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet casualties number - 27 million

This article has Soviet dead listed as 23.6 million, when in fact it was around 27 million. Some sources which list the figure as 27 million (including Time magazine, BBC, the US Department of Defence) - [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. The Russian president has himself stated that the USSR lost 27 million at the recent 60th anniversary of WWII. The reason why there are lower figures sometimes listed is perhaps best described by this passage from Encarta - "Official Soviet reports at the time stated that 20 million soldiers and civilians perished in the war, but it was later revealed, during Gorbachev’s time in office in the 1980s, that a more realistic figure for Soviet losses was between 27 million and 28 million" [15]--Ilya1166 13:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the confusion is due to that the numbers you refer to include all people living within the USSR 1941 borders. We keep separate numbers for the Baltic states, pre-war Poland, etc. See the footnote. If we had just included every territory that was within USSR borders in 1941 in one big casualty figure, a number close to what you cite would be correct. But we are more specific. And I think that's good. Don't you agree? Shanes 13:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, you are assuming that those figures include Poland/Baltics casualties. Secondly, casualties of the Soviet Union shouldn't be split up into their separate republics. The baltics were part of the Soviet Union until its dissolution in 1991. Casualties are counted by country, not by republic. If we do as you suggest, why don't we count Ukraine's casualties as a separate statistic, or why not Russia's? You see the fallacy in such an argument. The statistic of 27 million is given in those sources and it should be followed, it is not up to us to determine whether it should be split up and whether that statistic includes pre-war Poland/baltics. If world leaders and recognised publications like the BBC, Time Magazine, etc, list Soviet dead as 27 million, that statistic should be followed.--Ilya1166 14:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The Baltics were three free and independent nations when the war broke out in 1939. The Ukraine, on the other hand, was one of the founding republics of the USSR way back in 1922, and not an independent state when the war started. I think it makes sense to state numbers for countries as of 1939, when the war in Europe started. And I do think it is up to us whether we should be more specific and use separate numbers for the territories when we can find sourced numbers for them. And we can. We cite sources much better than other encyclopedias, magazines or the BBC. We cite historians who have studied and published their research. Again, please read the footnote.
But we could maybe be better at avoiding this confusion about what numbers are for which territories and when. Maybe we could have a separate entry for all of the post war USSR, but which of course doesn't get included when we add all the casualties (so we don't include losses twice in the total)? What do you and others think? Shanes 14:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that we should state numbers for countries as of 1939 as the Soviet Union entered war in 1941, as did the United States. It is misleading as the USSR population in 1941 was about 196 million, not 175 million. If historians in those sources say those 23.6 million is the figure (they are not recent sources, they were published in the 90's), then why do contemporary sources such as the ones I cited and world leaders say that the number is 27 million? Do you think they make up these numbers? I think the USSR figure should be changed to 27 million, if you want you can make a separate figure for the post-Soviet baltic republics, go for it if you want.--Ilya1166 15:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The Soviet Union invaded Finland and invaded Poland in 1939. And in 1940 they invaded the Baltic republics. These were all of course part of World War II, and we include the casualties from these fightings in our numbers. Nobody is making up numbers, but as explained some sources include casualties from different territories. Please read the footnotes for the Soviet, Polish, and the Baltic republics. Either way, using Tertiary sources as you do by citing other encyclopedias, magazines or BBC is not acceptable when we have primary sources and secondary sources sources available. Shanes 17:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
A few words on the numbers. The cause of the confusion is that Poland and the USSR both insist on counting the war dead in the regions that were occupied by the USSR in 1939. The Poles include an estimated 5.2 million Poles & Jews in the annexed territories with their total population base of 27 million. The Polish historian K. Kersten estimates 2 million total war dead in this region out of 5 milion total losses. The Russian figure of 26.6 million war dead is for the entire territory of the USSR in 1941, including the territories annexed from Poland, the Baltic states and Romania. The Russian losses of 26.6 million made an adjustment for Population transfers but not for the losses in the annexed territories also counted by Poland.
Some more words about the numbers. The Polish compute their war dead for only the Poles and Jews in the populaion, excluding the 7 million Ukrainians and Belorussians. The Soviet population in 1939 borders was 168.5 million according to the census. It is pointed out in the notes at the bottom of the schedule that the Soviet population includes 7 million Ukrainians and Belorussians excluded from Poland's population.
The Russian source listed below explains that war losses will vary depending on the population base used to estimate war losses.

Rossiiskaia Akademiia nauk. Liudskie poteri SSSR v period vtoroi mirovoi voiny:sbornik statei. Sankt-Peterburg 1995 ISBN 5-86789-023-6--Woogie10w 16:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Civilian losses in territories annexed by USSR are included in totals of the Baltic states(600,00), Poland(2,000,000),Czechoslovakia(80,000)] and Romania(300,000)]. The total Soviet population in 1941 of 196.7 million has been adjusted only for net population transfers. [16] ,Civilian losses are poorly documented and may include victims of Soviet as well as Nazi repression. Contemporary Russian historians estimate 2.5 to 3.2 million civilian dead due to famine in Soviet territory not occupied by the Germans, these deaths are included in Soviet civilian losses.--Woogie10w 23:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this scheduele should list the figure of 26-27 million Soviet deaths where it includes all Soviet borders, and put in the footnote the 23.6 million figure and the reason why, rather than the other way around as it is now.--Ilya1166 02:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to change USSR losses. The footnotes go into the details and sources of the numbers. In any case to post the figure of 26.6 million for the USSR would mean deleting the Baltic states, reducing Poland’s losses to 3 million and Romania to 500,000. The bottom line would remain the same. Readers have the facts that are backed up with sources, lets not upset the applecart--Woogie10w 16:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Woogies. --LtWinters 19:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The USSR was invaded in 1941, by which time it had annexed the various republics, therefore losses presented should be within the 1941- borders, not for the 1939 borders.--Ilya1166 08:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To delete the Baltics and reduce Poland's losses to 3 million would add insult to injury. The USSR as an ally of Hitler Germany annexed these territories.--Woogie10w 10:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The USSR wasn't an ally of Germany, nor was it even "co-belligerent". This is a historical fact and has been established by wikipedians on the World War II talk page when some editors tried to list the Soviet Union as "co belligerent" from 1939-1941. Secondly, of the 13.5 million civilians living in the newly annexed Polish territories, Poles were the largest single ethnic group; but Belarusians and Ukrainians together made up something like over 50% of the population. Separate Baltic casualties should be deleted, it is ridiculous that they are listed separately here. They were republics of the USSR when the USSR was invaded by Germany in 1941 until its dissolution and if you list their losses separately, why not list Ukraine's casualties separately, Kazakhstan's casualties separately, etc. The key point here is that the USSR entered the war in 1941 - monuments to the war in Soviet Union and the post Soviet republics always list the date 1941-1945, not 1939-1945 - which is why the casualties of the USSR should include the 1941 borders.--Ilya1166 02:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
My dear fellow you seem to forget the fact that the USSR signed a secret pact in 1939 with Hitler Germany to carve up Poland, annexed the Baltic states with tacit approval of Berlin and joined the Axis in the dismemberment of Rumania in 1940. The USSR supplied Hitler Germany with vital raw materials including oil from 1939-41. These are facts that can't be ignored. The USSR terrorized the local population by means of deportations, about 2 million people. In 1941 the German Army was greeted as liberators by the local population. Today the USSR is despised in these countries, the recent controversy in Estonia highlights this point. Stefan Bandara is a hero in the Western Ukraine today. It would add insult to injury to include the civilian deaths in the annexed territories with the USSR.--Woogie10w 09:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with Ilya, numbers for the 1941 borders should be used as that's the starting date of WWII for the Soviet Union.--Caranorn 16:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Think man, that means Poland's losses become 3 million, Rumania 500,000 and the Baltic States are deleted. We can't duplicate losses--Woogie10w 16:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and where would be the problem with that? Including the Baltic States in the first place was ridiculous as they did not participate in WWII as sovereign states. There'd be no problem to reduce the numbers for Poland and Romania if needed. As it is currently is at best confusing if not an attempt to serve nationalistic ambitions.--Caranorn 18:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Hold on, there is no confusion, the introduction makes it clear that Soviet losses in 1946-91 borders were 26.6 million. The footnotes list losses by individual Soviet Republic. --Woogie10w 18:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually the fact that different numbers are used in the Debated Numbers section and Casualties by Country is somewhat problematic, though I see no solution other then using that same number in both and indeed striking the three Baltic States and deducing the appropriate number from Poland and Romania (but making a note about this in the relevant footnotes.
But Now that I've taken a closer look I have a question. What are those 80000 Czechoslovak casualties in the Soviet Union footnotes, I thought these were listed under Czechoslovakia?--Caranorn 19:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"Hold on, there is no confusion, the introduction makes it clear that Soviet losses in 1946-91 borders were 26.6 million."???? Soviet losses in 1941 borders, not 1946-1991 borders, were 26.6 million. Caranorn is absolutely right, the Baltic states did not participate in WWII as sorereign states. Your arguments don't hold up, Woogie, the fact remains that numbers for the 1941 borders should be used as that's the starting date of WWII for the Soviet Union.--Ilya1166 01:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Russian source that is listed here Andreev is quite clear that the losses are in 1946-91 borders, not 1941 borders. This is important because borders changed in 1945. Territories with 1.5 million Poles were given back to Poland( Bialostok and a sliver in the south), and TransCarpathia was annexed from Czechoslovikia. This is also very important because to arrive at the figure of 26.6 million Andreev had to bridge the gap between the the 1939 and 1959 census. The data for Polish losses of 2 million in the annexed territories is from the paper by K. Kersten listed in the Polish footnote. The Baltic states were independant in 1939 did participate in the war as victims of Soviet agression and should not be deleted. The readers knnow Soviet losses were 26.6 million in 1946-91 borders and the source of this data is listed. Deleting the Baltic States is unacceptable. So you see it is not so simple to plug the number of 27 million in the USSR line. To get the Grand total to be correct one must then reduce Poland to 3 million, Romania to 500,000 and delete the Baltic States. --Woogie10w 02:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As Caranorn said, what would be the problem with that? 'Including the Baltic States in the first place was ridiculous as they did not participate in WWII as sovereign states. There'd be no problem to reduce the numbers for Poland and Romania if needed. As it is currently is at best confusing if not an attempt to serve nationalistic ambitions.' The Baltic states were annexed peacefully, there was no military conflict! - Whether they were compelled or not to accept the agreement is irrelevant. All the losses the Baltic states incurred was when they were already part of the USSR. It is sheer inaccuracy to present their losses separately when they were not 'separate' states.--Ilya1166 04:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Austrian military deaths

I find it strange that the Austrian military deaths are being counted as German military deaths. It makes the number of total deaths and the population percentage meaningless, since they were part of the Austrian population, but are counted as German deaths. 80.108.198.141 20:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

These losses were in service for Germany, not for Austria. We would not count the 180,000 Sudeten German military dead with Czechoslovakia nor the 108,000 Polish Volksdeutsche with Poland.--Woogie10w 00:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I see the reasoning behind this, although I don't think it does apply for Austria, as there wouldn't be "two sides" of soldiers from Austria put together. Still I maintain that this approach makes the columns "Total deaths" and "Deaths as % of population" meaningless. Germany's 7,503,000 total deaths are NOT derived from the 1939 population of 69,623,000, and from the 6,653,000 Austrians of 1939, much more than 105,500 died. 80.108.198.141 12:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The footnotes make this point clear for readers who are free to recalculate Austrian losses by adding back military losses to the total. The US Army formed a seperate battalion, the 101st, that had personnel of Austrian ancestry. The unit never saw action, the troops were sent to other units in 1943, so the US had Austrian soldiers also!--Woogie10w 03:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess the question is, are there reliable and distinct statistics on Austrian military casualties, as opposed to Germanper se and Volksdeutsch? This is analogous with (British) Indian soldiers in WW2, many of whom would now be considered Pakistani or Bangladeshi.Grant | Talk 04:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blacklisted link in the article

It seems one of the links included in the article is blacklisted (www.cronologia.it/) and it prevents editing of the entire article (and I assume that section) article. Looking at the link (not speaking any Italian) it seems the link is valid, but I'm unsure what steps have to be taken to have it removed from the blacklist, so maybe someone else can take the necessary steps.--Caranorn 19:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by blacklisted?--Woogie10w 20:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
A site identified as spam, I think this is the list. You can find out more by just trying to revert the article to the point just before you removed the link in question.--Caranorn 20:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baltic States must have a line

There is absolutely no justification to delete the Baltic States and include their losses with the USSR. The baltic nations were independant in 1939 and were victims of Soviet agression during the war. The losses of the Baltics should not be deleted from the table--Woogie10w 20:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Having the Baltic states casualties separately as it is currently is at best confusing if not an attempt to serve nationalistic ambitions. The Baltic states were annexed peacefully, there was no military conflict! - Whether they were compelled or not to accept the agreement is irrelevant. All the losses the Baltic states incurred was when they were already part of the USSR. It is sheer inaccuracy to present their losses separately when they were not 'separate' states.--Ilya1166 04:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
In the case of Poland let us take the example of the Holocaust. Western historians have always included Poland's Jewish losses in 1939 borders- 3 million. The Baltic losses are listed seperately. The Soviet Jewish losses are given for 1939 borders.--Woogie10w 04:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
You assert that "The Baltic states were annexed peacefully". Tell that to the folks from Estonia and I bet they will get violent. You say "an attempt to serve nationalistic ambitions" Nationalist feelings are strong in the Baltic States today due to that fact that they had to endure 45 years of Soviet occupation.--Woogie10w 04:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The losses of the Baltics must remain on seperate lines.--Woogie10w 04:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they were annexed peacefully, as in there was no military conflict. It does not matter how figures were calculated, numbers for the 1941 borders should be used as that's the starting date of WWII for the Soviet Union, therefore Baltic states casualties should not be listed separately but incorporated into the USSR's as are the other Soviet republic's. They did not participate in WWII as sovereign states. You might as well separate every Soviet republic's losses.--Ilya1166 05:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
That is already done in the footnotes, each Soviet Republic is listed seperately. The source is from Russia, Vadim Erlikman.--Woogie10w 11:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Woogie10w that there is nothing wrong in listing Baltic states deaths in separate entries. The SU losses are somewhat confusing, as they may includge both the deaths from fighting Germans, but also deaths from Soviet terror - and particulary in the case of Baltics and Poland, the latter is a signficiant factor.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Soviet terror in the annexed Polish eastern provinces from 1939-41 has been well documented by the historian Jan T. Gross in his book Revolution From Abroad. Over 1.2 million people were deported into the USSR. All ethnic groups were terrorized. The Poles were targeted because they were landowners, the Ukrainians accused of being nationalists and the Jews were targeted as black market operators. Journalists, clergy and teachers were considered threats and were singled out for deporation. The Stalinists picked common criminals from the jails to run the local government. The total loss of life due to these purges is estimated at 350,000 by Tadeusz Piotrowski Professor of Sociology at the University of New Hampshire]].[17].Go to note on Polish Casualties at bottom of page--Woogie10w 22:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Move to WWII subpage

In line with subpaging policy, I believe this page should be moved to a subpage of WWII, and the WWII section casualties should direct to that subpage. However, as page moves are not as clear and easy to undo as regular edits, I think it would be better to discuss it first. I believe that the casualties of WWII are part of WWII and should therefor be a subpage, and not a seperate article. Martijn Hoekstra 23:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There is already a link to WW2 Casualties in the main article.--Woogie10w 02:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but I meant moveing this article to WWII/casualties Martijn Hoekstra 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand: WP:SP says "...in "main" namespace (="article namespace")... the subpage feature has been disabled in English Wikipedia..." Aren't we operating in the main namespace? Grant | Talk 07:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Nope, you're right. Ignore the gibberish above. Martijn Hoekstra 12:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Greek jewish population losses

I think somewhere near 50,000 people perished in concentration camps in Germany.There weren't 71,300 Jews on the eve of the war in the country anyway.Can someone give me a source for the opposite if there is one please; Black Horseman 08:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Martin Gilbert. In his book Atlas of the Holocaust 1988 ISBN 0-688-12364-3 on pages 242-244 lists the following Greek Jewish losses. Greece 65,000, Thrace 4,221, Crete 260, and 1,820 from Kos and Rhodes. Total deaths 71,301. The number of Holocaust survivors is given as 12,000.--Woogie10w 10:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the number is a little exaggerated. In Thessaloniki there were ~52,000 and almost all(except 2,000) of them perished but the other 15,000 (to reach the 65,000 number) in mainland Greece or the ~5000 in Thrace are inflated i think.Anyway thanks for providing the source.Black Horseman 10:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yugoslav casulties

I think it is rather problematic to take Mr. Zerjavic's book as a source. Not only that it is printed in 1993 during the civilian war, but it was disputed by the majority of historians from all ex-Yugoslav republics, including Croatia. Only in Jasenovac, more than 700,000 Serbs, Roma and Jews was ethnically cleansed during the Croatian genocide. This figure has never been challenged for half a century by any historian, foreign or domestic. According to official sources, WWII casualties in Yugoslavia were approximately 2,000,000. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.91.1.43 (talk) 08:29, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

The US Census Bureau did an analysis of the Yugosalav population losses in the war and concluded that losses were 1,067,000. The puffed up official figure of 2 million includes 600,000 Germans and Italians who left the country and 300,000 children who were not born because of the war.--Woogie10w 10:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website has an informative section on Jasenovac. They report Although further research may yield more exact figures, current estimates place the number of victims murdered by the Ustaša in Jasenovac during World War II between 56,000 and 97,000[18]--Woogie10w 01:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the German Wikipedia there was in Yugoslavia about 1,300,000 civilian deaths and total between 1,600.000 and 1,800.000 deaths. As sources serve F.W. Putzger: Historical world atlas, Velhagen and Klasing, in 1969, and W. van Mourik: Balance of the war, Lekturama Rotterdam, in 1978. In the English Wikipedia as sources serve Croatian authors (like Vladimir Žerjavić) who have in general a problem to recognise war crime, just as it Serbian authors have on the subject like Srebrenica. I find this very doubtful.--Carski 11:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The US Census Bureau did an analysis of the Yugoslav population during the war and concluded losses were 1.1 million. You cannot count the emmigration of ethnic Germaans and Italians as war losses. The figure of 1.7 million Youoslav war dead cannot be backed up with an analysis of the population.--Woogie10w 16:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yugoslav Population 1940-48

Description Amount
Population 12/31/39 15,633,000
Births1940-1948 3,357,000
Normal Deaths (2,039,000)
Emigration (698,000)
Immigration 40,000
War Losses (1,067,000)
Acquired Territories 546,000
Population 12/31/48 15,772,000

Source :The Population of Yugoslavia US Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Washington 1954 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woogie10w (talk • contribs) 22:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


The following quote is from the Website Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm [19]

Johan Wüscht, Population Losses in Yugoslavia during World War Two (1963), estimates a total population shortfall of 2,210,000 in the 1948 census. After accounting for emmigration (700,000) and a drop in births (423,000), he reckons the total number of deaths caused by the war and its aftermath to be 1,100,000. He also points out that adding up all the accusations of atrocities commited during the war far exceeds this calculated number of deaths, so one of them is wrong.--Woogie10w 23:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

But there is the speech of 580.000 civilian deaths and as a (only?) source becomes Vladimir Žerjavić, which investigations from Yad Vashem and Simon Wiesenthal Centre are not recognised. Is it possible that Žerjavić, who also has come to wrong data to the victims during the Bosnia war (220.000 instead of 102.000), is more objective than these institutions? It's always inappropriate to discuss the number of victims, but we also should avoid politicisation and political abuse. And when Žerjavić published in 1993 his investigations about the victims in Yugoslavia 1941-45 he was in service of Croatia and with them in service of a conflict party during the Balkan wars 1991-95, when it was a matter of improving own position and thereby own history and of weakening those of the other conflict party. From there my suspicion that he acted not quite objectively.--Carski 11:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The demographic evidence cannot be contradicted, Yugoslavia lost 1.0 to 1.1 million dead in WW2. The breakout of this figure is a subject of debate. The general concensus is that between 200-300,000 died as soldiers or patrtisans on both sides. The remaining 700-800,000 were civilians, including about 60-70,000 Jews. Most civilians died as victims of the Fascists, however the Partisans took their revenge after the war was over. The sad chronicle of these atrocities from 1941-45 has been well documented. As far as Žerjavić is concerned let us look at the facts that he has presented regarding WW2 and keep Bosnia circa. 1992 out of the discussion. --Woogie10w 02:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The Serb writer Bogoljub Kočović tallied losses at 1,014,000. Not far from the calculation of the Croatian Žerjavić's 1,027,000.--Woogie10w 03:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not about Bosnia but about the works of Žerjavić and his credibility. And Bogoljub Kočović because is Serbian is not signified that he is right, this is not an argument. There also are Croatian authors who write about 500.000 till 600.000 civililian victims only in Croatia. Now everybody tries to trick the other, just in area of public relations. This is policy especially in the Balkans today, or Israel and Palestinians too - not only, but as an example... (I'm little active in German Hagalil-forum therefore I'm not antisemitic or "anticionist"; in Hagalil-forum nobody would write about 580.000 civilian victims in Yugoslavia during WW2, and the German Shoa write about 600.000 civilian victims in Croatia, see http://www.shoa.de/content/view/231/231/). Therefore whom I will more believe, to the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, to German Shoa-forum, to Yad Vashem, or yet to Žerjavić with exists of suspicion of him that he was motivated nationalistically? To sources and data: what are sure sources and data, who determines which are more right and which are less right sources and data? To give only sources it doesn't reach, the right authorities must also stand behind it. Alles Gute. --Carski 15:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is the demographic loss suffered by Yugoslavia in the war. The impartial analysis by the US Bureau of the Census concluded that 1,067,000 Yugoslav's died in the war and 698,000 left the country. If you refuse to accept Žerjavić then you can cite US Bureau of the Census as the source. The Tito statement of 1945 that 1.7 million died in the war became gospel truth in Yugoslavia from 1945-91. Unfortunately too many people in foriegn countries accepted this worthless statistic at face value without subjecting it to critical analysis.--Woogie10w 13:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
At the conference of the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences, held on June 6, 1985, Dr Dusan Breznik stated that about 1,100.000 people were killed in the war. Paul Mayers and Arthur Campbell, the American authors of the study: "The population of Yugoslavia", published by the Bureau of Census, Washington D.C. , 1954, calculated the Yugoslav life losses at 1,067.000. --Woogie10w 14:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm just disputing all this numbers about Yugoslav casualties in the WWII. Also, I'm deeply unsatisfacted with the occurence that some people like to play with dead people. The US Census Bureau did an analysis of the Yugoslav population during the war and concluded losses were 1.1 million. As I can saw, The US Census Bureau for some people is untouchable authority for questions of Yugoslav demographics. But, is this really the fact? Why do you people make politics, why don't you stay on the real facts? If you haven't got any real Census data just before the War, why than fabricate anything? Yugoslav people were given too much blood in WWII. This ocean of blood also do not deserve some conference of SANU or a tea party as the reference, if you aren't pleased (question is why? politics again?) with official Yugoslav goverment data from 1945. Can you provide here some more suitable, and of course, published, respectable, scientifically proven source? If you haven't got this, please just put here official Yugoslav gov's data, or just put N/A.--Dejvas (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the Yugoslav figure of 1.7 million is that it cannot be backed up with demographic analysis. It is a statistic used only in political propaganda--Woogie10w (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Bogoljub Kočović a statistician, who is a Serb by ethnic affiliation calculated that the actual war losses were 1,014,000--Woogie10w (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You try to say that Yugoslav (figure which is aquired by counting the war victims) is political propaganda. But, US Census Bureau (analysis figure) is not??? Oh, please... don't only chattering, give the facts, only the facts I'm looking for. For example, references that Yugoslav figure of 1.7 mil isn't correct. Be accurate with details, please. And please, don't give me only your political oppinions and visions (can I say - your propaganda), exactly I'm not very interesting in that. And I'm not carry about Kočović nacionality (as a matter of fact, he isn't Serb, he is Yugoslav by ethnic affiliation). This is important: He clearly stated that his estimates depended on these assumptions, and that if other population growth were assumed, different results would have been obtained. So, we have here a situation: Kočović and Žeravčić estimation vs thousends of other ex-Yugoslav statisticians and demographers.--Dejvas (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The Report by the US Census Bureau is backed up by soild demographic analysis. The work by Žerjavić and Kočović confirm the US Census report that actual losses were between 1.0 and 1.1 million due to the war. The key point to grasp is that Yugoslavia lost 650,000 ethic Germans and Italians due to postwar emmigration, they can't be considered war losses. Add them to 1.1 million and you arrive at the official figure of 1.7 million. That is what I call fuzzy math.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I have read the following material which is relevant to our discussion, I strongly recommend that you read it. Tomasevich, Jozo. War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. ISBN 0804736154 Cap.17 Alleged and True Population Losses
This is a objective discussion of the controversies related to Yugoslav war losses by a well known scholar. The author makes it very clear that the Yugoslav figure of 1.7 million war dead is a political myth. I am sure that after reading the analysis by Tomasevich you will realize that actual losses were closer to 1 million. I understand that this is an emotional issue because so many innocent people have lost their lives during the war, however we must remain true to the facts. I hope that others viewing this page will have the chance to read the arguments by Tomasevich and then we will be able to continue this discussion from an informed objective point of view. Regards. --Woogie10w (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Listen, I don't care about political analysis of Tomasevich Jozo. Give me scientific evidences that the population growth in Yugoslavia was as high as Kocovic assumed in his book. If nobody in the world cannot confirm these numbers, then, whole analysis of Kocovic is only a chip novel (and possible, material ordered with an idea to minimize number of Yugoslav WWII human losses). How can one serious mathematician (statistician) to prove something without facts, based only on some assumed clues, which are btw unprovable?
So, count of Yugoslav victims in the WWII for me is 1.7 mil (gov data), or (only if someone here give precise references that this number is fabricated), than that count is N/A. Other readers can accept as they wish, and as they (politicaly) like and prefer.--Dejvas (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Yugoslav victims in the WWII for me is 1.7 mil (gov data), this is a blatant POV push. The weight of the evidence is that actual losses were 1.0-1.1 million. Again I ask readers to check Tomasevich, Jozo. War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. ISBN 0804736154 Cap.17 Alleged and True Population Losses. The book by Tomasevich is a impartial academic analysis regarding Yugoslav losses. I hope that others viewing this page will have the chance to read the arguments by Tomasevich and then we will be able to continue this discussion from an informed objective point of view. You cannot push a POV that has no solid academic support.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The origin of the figure of 1.7 million war dead is a statement by Tito on April 27,1945. In late 1945 the Yugoslav government made a claim for war reparations claiming 1,706,000 war dead. Both claims were made before the census of 1948. It would be impossible to determine actual war losses without the census data. After the census Yugoslav demographers computed actual war losses at close to 1 million but their work was supressed because it did agree with Tito’s statement made during the war. The claim that Yugoslavia lost 1.7 million is political propaganda that cannot be backed up with demographic analysis. --Woogie10w (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Reliable and verifiable sources support the figure for Yugoslav losses being about 1.0 to 1.1 million. The official Yugoslav figure of 1.7 million was an estimate made in April 1945 by Tito. This estimate of 1.7 million was made before the census of 1948. Computations made by professional demographers using the data from the 1948 census have estimated actual losses at between 1.0 and 1.1 million. The official Yugoslav figure of 1.7 million has been discredited as a political myth that lacks the support of reliable and verifiable sources.
These sources are reliable and can be verified.
1-Tomasevich, Jozo. War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. ISBN 0804736154 In Cap.17 Alleged and True Population Losses there is a detailed account of the controversies related to Yugoslav war losses.
2-U.S. Bureau of the Census The Population of Yugoslavia Ed. Paul F. Meyers and Arthur A. Campbell , Washington D.C.- 1954
3-Bogoljub Kočović -Žrtve Drugog svetskog rata u Jugoslaviji 1990 ISBN 8601019285
4-Vladimir ŽerjavićYugoslavia manipulations with the number Second World War victims, - Zagreb: Croatian Information center,1993 ISBN 0-919817-32-7 [20] and [21]
--Woogie10w (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
But, still you didn't provide any evidences for your passioned political story. You're only spinning around and around, but, this what you said is not sufficient proof, scientificaly acceptable. I don't care about whole bunch of political essays you pointed to. We have here only figures from Yugoslav census data from 1931. and census data from 1948. This is a huge amount of time.. so, all estimations are unreliable.--Dejvas (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The U.S. Bureau of the Census and an academic study by the Stanford University Press are Reliable and verifiable sources that have published support for the position that the official Yugoslav figure of 1.7 million war dead is overstated and that the actual war losses are estimated at between 1.0 and 1.1 million. These sources have explained in detail the demographic calculations that were made to arrive at this estimate. We can use only Reliable and verifiable sources here on Wikipedia.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
You say all estimations are unreliable Look at the problem from this POV. The Yugoslav statisticians Dolfe Vogelnik, Ivo Lah, Ivan Klauzner, Bogolijub Kocovic and Vladimir Zerjavic have each done independent research that estimates war losses at 1.0 to 1.1 million. The US Bureau of the Census in 1954 published a professional demographic report that estimated losses at 1,067,000. They noted that the original estimate of 1.7 million was made before the publication of census data and was incorrect. The important point is that these estimates were arrived at independently by professional researchers. The sources go into the details of how the numbers were derived,
War & Revolution in Yugoslavia 1941-45, published by a leading academic institution in the U.S. concluded that the calculations by Dolfe Vogelnik, Ivo Lah, Ivan Klauzner, Bogolijub Kocovic and Vladimir Zerjavic were “ free of political and propaganda bias” the study noted that these estimates are “ very close and seem to be free of bias, we can accept them as quite reliable.” Now on the other hand there are those who continue to defend the 1945 statistic of 1.7 million war dead because was generated by the Yugoslav government in the Tito era. This was political propaganda generated by a discredited dictatorship. Statements by the Yugoslav government in the Tito era are questionable sources with a poor reputation. We need to post information that is free of political and propaganda bias, from verifiable sources. We can’t post 1.7 million and use Tito’s statement from 1945 as a source, this is political propaganda.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to determine total war losses.

Start with the Beginning Population 1939

Add Births

Subtract Natural Deaths(Non war related)

Account for population shifts ( changes in borders and migrations)

Add the numbers and compare the result to the postwar census data.

That will yield the net losses related to the war. The nature of the losses from direct or indirect causes will require further investigation. The losses related to World War Two need to be backed up by solid analysis and the sources verified.--Woogie10w 14:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to determine total war losses. I am starting to question even the value of the rough guesses we have here. The problems are several: The different ways of counting some persons who died, the loss and confusion of records due to the haze of war, but most importantly and finally because of the vast amount of exaggeration and outright lies by parties on all sides and of many professions. At first, my thoughts on seeing some of these figures were "3 million Polish Jews killed? That's a suspiciously round number", but in fact the roundness of it may be a good reflection on the very roughness of the figure. Were I to now see a figure of 3,117,502 I do not think of this as more accurate, even if it is more precise. Reading the comments here, it becomes obvious that one cannot make a count of the war dead without taking some very specific positions on the war, pre- and post war politics, and all of the baggage that comes with it. For instance, I could ask if the number of German-speaking persons who resided in Czechoslovakia before the war and who died on the marches forced by the victorious Slavic nationalist forces should be counted as Czech war dead, German war dead, or counted at all in these figures. Any answer to the question makes statements about who is German, who is Czechoslovak, and when the war ended. Bobkeyes 19:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Gregory, Frumkin. Population Changes in Europe Since 1939, Geneva 1951. explains in detail how war losses were computed. The losses of Poland were analyized in .S. Bureau of the Census The Population of Poland Ed. W. Parker Mauldin, Washington- 1954. Estimates of Polish losses have been revised from 6 million to 5 million by Polish historians. This is backed up by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum [22] The loss of 5 million in Poland is an estimate based on the analysis of the population shifts between the 1931 and 1946 census. The Polish government estimated the 1939 population included 3.3 Polish Jews( by religion)of whom 3 million spoke Yiddish , about 100,000 children were born in the war. We must account for 3.4 million Polish Jews. The 1946 census by the Jewish community in Poland counted about 240,000. There about an additional 100,000 Polish Jews in western Europe and Palestine listed by the refugee agancies. In 1955-59 about 40,000 Polish Jews left the USSR. That leaves about 400,000 surviving Jews after the war. We have loss of loss of about 3 million. This is a reasonable estimate based on the head count after the war. Most Polish Jews spoke Yiddish and could not have been counted with the ethnic Poles. The loss of an estimated 3 million Polish Jews is credible because it is backed up by a population census after the war.--Woogie10w 23:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The statistical details of the expulsion of the Germans from east Europe are well documented in a study that was supported by the German government, Gerhard Reichling. Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen, Bonn 1995, ISBN 3-88557-046-7. Civilian losses of the ethnic Germans of Czechoslovakia were estimated at 220,000 due to the expulsions. --Woogie10w 11:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War victims Yugoslavia

The number of victims in Yugoslavia during World War II has never been determined exactly. The official Yugoslav post-war estimate is 1,704,000. Majority of the victims were Serbs, targeted in a planned genocide in NDH, and who also constitued bulk of both partisan and royalist chetnik guerilla forces.

However, the number of 1.7 million was later disputed as being delibaretly exaggerated for war reparations from Germany. Germany refused to pay reparations until names were provided of the victims, following which another investigation showed only half of the number. Subsequent data gathering in the 1980s by historians Vladimir Žerjavić (Croatian) and Bogoljub Kočović (Serb) showed that the actual number of dead was about 1 million. Both arrived to an almost equal figure during independant, unrelated studies.

This was later confirmed by Professor Vladeta Vučković, Serbian author of the official 1946 Yugoslav document, who agreed with Žerjavić and Kočović estimations. Vučković has stated that he had calculated demographic loss to 1,700,000 (i.e. including those not born, deaths by starvation, diseases, etc.), and later that number was interpreted as actual number of victims and presented by Yugoslav delegation on peace conference later that year in Paris. [2]

Other sources have confirmed their figures:

"Details of the (Yugoslav) 1948 census were kept secret but, in negotiations with Germany, it became apparent that the real figure of the dead was about one million. An American study in 1954 calculated 1,067,000 [3]. Following Tito's death in 1980, the 1948 census results became available for comparison with those of 1931. Allowances had to be made for the birth rates of the different communities and for emigration. Research was pioneered by Professor Kočović, a Serb living in the West, whose findings were published in January 1985. He assessed the number of dead as 1,014,000. Later that year a Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts Conference heard that the figure was 1,100,000.[23] In 1989 Vladimir Zerjavic, a Croatian living in Zagreb published, with the aid of the Zagreb Jewish community, his calculation of 1,027,000. ... So a figure of about one million for all Yugoslavia is now generally accepted." [4]

Žerjavić's and Kočović's calculations of war losses in Yugoslavia during WW2 were accepted by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, together with other typically higher estimates:

"Due to differing views and lack of documentation, estimates for the number of Serbian victims in Croatia range widely, from 25,000 to more than one million. The estimated number of Serbs killed in Jasenovac ranges from 25,000 to 700,000. The most reliable figures place the number of Serbs killed by the Ustaša between 330,000 and 390,000, with 45,000 to 52,000 Serbs murdered in Jasenovac." [5]

A list compiling individual names of victims has reached only 600,000.[2]

Number of victims by ethnicity is:

Nationality 1946 Kočović[2] Žerjavić[2] By name[2]
Albanians 4,000 - - -
Bosnian 100,000 86,000 103,000 32,300
Croatian 110,000 207,000 192,000 83,257
Germans - 26,000 28,000 -
Hungarian 3,000 - - -
Jews 60,000 60,000 57,000 45,000
Macedonians 35,000 - - -
Montenegrin 50,000 50,000 20,000 16,276
Slovacs 1,000 - - -
Slovenians 60,000 32,000 42,000 42,027
Serbs 1,280,000 487,000 530,000 346,740
Turks 686 - - -
Others - 66,000 55,000 31,723
TOTAL 1,703,686 1,014,000 1,027,000 597,323

By region:

Country 1946
Bosnia and Herzegovina 690,000
Croatia 630,000
Kosovo 14,000
Macedonia 40,000
Montenegro 50,000
Slovenia 60,000
Serbia 170,000
Vojvodina 40,000

Damit lassen wir gut sein--Woogie10w 17:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] GA Nomination

I have reviewed this article according to the criteria for good articles and have decided to fail it. I think highly of this article, but the reason for failure is that I firmly believe it falls into the category of a list. The good article (GA) criteria do not cover lists, and so I do not believe that this article can be passed as a GA. As such, I strongly recommend that it is eventually nominated to be considered as a featured list (FL).

There are a number of problems with the article, however, which I will point out in order to aid your Featured List nomination, and which would have resulted in this article failing my GA review even if it were covered by GA guidelines.

Lead Section

  • A concise and accurate lead section is required for GA and FL candidates. The lead section of this article is inaccurate. Rather than providing a "detailed country-by-country count of death by side", the article does this mainly in alphabetical order. "By side" is not only inaccurate but simplistic, and I strongly suggest that this passage is modified.

Combined Total

  • The prose can often be clunky and sometimes includes unnecessary subordinate clauses. For example, the "Combined Total" section begins with this sentence: The total estimated human loss of life caused by World War II, irrespective of political alignment, was roughly 72 million people. The subordinate clause here is unnecessary and is actually detrimental to the article, as again it is simplistic to suggest that people died according to their political beliefs. Also, as you note later on, political alignments of states shifted during the war. The sentence clearly states that this is the total figure of Second World War dead, why does this need to be clarified further?
  • The military toll was about 25 million, including about 5 million prisoners of war. This is ambiguous - does it mean that some of your figures lump PoWs or MIA in with KIA, or does it mean that 5 million soldiers were killed in captivity?

Debated numbers

  • This section does not flow very well. It reads like a series of explanatory notes to a set of lists rather than an encyclopedia entry on the problems inherent with trying to write down and agree upon a set of casualty figures from a war. You only have to look at the enormous 5000 word Notes section to see how difficult this task is, yet is dealt with in the article only by a series of simple sentences which appear to have very little relation to each other.

Casualties by Country

  • In the Notes which go with this table there are two problems. The first is that the wikilink to "partisans" is written as the link - remove the (military) part. Secondly, the "POW" after "Prisoners of War" in the "military deaths" bullet point should be in brackets.

More generally, it is important that the article is proof read and that certain things are cleaned up. There is a consistent tendency throughout the article to leave acronyms unexplained. Even within the Commonwealth, I would bet that only a select few would know what the CWGC was just by looking at those letters. Similarly, not everyone in the English speaking world is going to know what the RAF is or perhaps even what the USSR means - today's 16 and 17 year olds never experienced the Cold War and they are just the kind of people who could be using this article for a school project.

With a more thorough discussion of the historiograpical and statistical problems associated with compiling casualty lists, this candidate would be more than broad enough for an article of this kind. It is impeccably referenced and researched, and by failing it I do not mean to denigrate the quality of research which has very obviously gone into it.

Chrisfow 12:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Be bold mate, clean up the language. Go for it. The format reads like a financial statement, that is my forte.--Woogie10w 22:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Jewish Holocaust casualties

Regarding the reference to Holocaust victims. For completion should this article not include the approx. 6 million non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust? Alternatively all losses could be included as civilian losses leaving the dedicated Holocaust article to address this ([24])78.32.5.75 16:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The Jews were singled out for extermination and 70% in German occupied territory perished. For example the Holocaust is also a seperate item on the German Wikipedia page on war casualties. Christian civilians could survive by working for the Germans while most Jews were not given this option. The fate of the Jews deserves special mention also because the Holocaust deniers are attempting to cover up the Nazi crime of mass murder. The Jewish losses in the Holocaust must remain as a seperate item--Woogie10w 22:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC).


The list does not currently account for approx. 6 million non-Jewish persons lost as a result of the Holocaust, not civilian casualties, e.g. The Roma people who were also single out and almost entirely wiped out (approx. 90%). This is not the point, an additional column on this page "non-Jewish Holocaust Victims" would resolve this and provide a more accurate reflection of the human losses and how. 78.32.5.75 01:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue is resolved in the footnotes, please read them--Woogie10w 01:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this issue is resolved in the footnotes. Most Holocaust/concentration camp victims were Jewish, but it is unclear right now whether the non-Jewish victims of the death camps are included under civilian casualties of the war. NTK (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no reliable breakout of camp victims by nationality. In his book Democide R.J.Rummel estimates 7,125,00 camp victims of whom 4 million were Jews, not counting an additional 3.1 million POW deaths(mostly Soviets). Civilian casualties include war related deaths as well as non-Jewish victims of the Nazis --Woogie10w (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
If there are no relable breakouts of camp victims, then the current column headings are highly misleading by referring to only "Jewish Holocaust victims." NTK (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
We do have reliable sources for Jewish Holoocast victims for each country. The figures posted here come from the well known historian Martin Gilbert.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Total Human Losses Section

It seems that the Total Human Losses section has swapped the total number of deaths between Axis and Allies. 11 millions for Allies and 61 millions for Axis? USSR alone suffered some 22 millions. Please correct the numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.101.221 (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Table or Heading-"Casualties Caused By"

There are tables and articles about the number of casualties suffered by the various combatants, along with the number of forces each combatant lost by virtue of their being captured by an enemy. I think a table or article showing the number of casualties INFLICTED by each combantant, and the number of forces captured by each combatant, would be very interesting. I have read extensively on WW II, and have searched the Internet, but I have not found any compilation of statistics in this regard. So, while we know approximately how many Soviets were killed and/or captured, and we can infer that virtually all were killed and/or captured by by the European members of the Axis, it wold be interesting to know how many casualties separate Hungarian and Romanian forces inflicted on the Soviet Union. Then there are the German and other Axis casualties. For example, we know that about 5,000,000 German military men were killed. But who killed how many of them? And we know that several hundred thousand, if not over a million, Axis forces were captured. Who captured how many of them? Thanks. 69.239.85.204 18:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)IMS

A detailed breakout of casualties inflicted by each combatant is simply not available in any one source. This page covers the total demographic impact of the war rather than a detailed analysis of battle casualties. Check the other Wikipedia pages on World War II. they may list data with verifiable sources for casualties in greater detail

There are sources of data on casualties which can be utilized to derive inflicted losses in combat that would encompass the different theaters of war for opposing sides.

The following sources, which can be obtained by interlibrary loan will be helpful

Michael Clodfelter. Warfare and Armed Conflicts- A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 1500-2000. 2nd Ed. 2002 ISBN 0-7864-1204-6.

Clodfelter has detailed data on US and UK losses in the war. However, he does not cite the sources of this data.

Rűdiger Overmans. Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Oldenbourg 2000. ISBN 3-486-56531-1

Overmans is essential for understanding German military casualties. If you cannot read German you won’t be able to read his detailed critique of the German wartime casualty reporting system. However with a good dictionary you will be able to read his statistical tables.

G. I. Krivosheev. Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses. Greenhill 1997 ISBN 1-85367-280-7 This book has the details of Soviet military casualties for every major battle of the war.


The Commonwealth War Graves Commission website data can be used to derive total dead for each year of the war. They include combat as well as non combat losses.

The UK Central Statistical Office Statistical Digest of the War HMSO 1951 General information on UK casualties

Strength and Casualties of the Armed Forces and Auxiliary Services of the United Kingdom 1939-1945 HMSO 1946 Cmd.6832
General information on UK casualties

Annual Changes in Population of Japan Proper 1 October 1920-1 October 1947, General Headquarters for the Allied Powers Economic and Scientific Section Research and Programs Division July 1948
This is the report by MacArthur’s office. There is a great deal of data here on total population movements and a brief summary of military losses.

Mark Axworthy. Third Axis Fourth Ally. Arms and Armour 1995 ISBN 1-85409-267-7 He has table breaking out Romanian losses chronologically.


Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5-93165-107-1 This is Russian handbook of human losses statistics for the 20th century. The book is goldmine of data from Soviet and Russian sources. I am so glad that Ike forced me to study Russian after Sputnik went up.

Morti E Dispersi Per Cause Belliche Negli Anni 1940-45 the official accounting of Italian losses by the Roma:Instituto Centrale Statistica in 1957
 This report has details of losses by month of the war and by theatre of war for military & civilian deaths. This is a number crunchers report, everything you wanted to know about Italian casualties is here. However this report excludes African soldiers in Italian service.
--Woogie10w 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Woogie10w. I did a bit more searching and made some attempts at gleaning. But a wide variance of estimates of casualties suffered by parties to the war made the effort daunting.
From the table and the footnotes in the Article, it appears that the USSR caused about 5,000,000 military deaths among the members of the Axis, almost all of whom were European members of the Axis. China and the Western Allies caused about 3,000,000 military deaths among the Axis, with one third being European and two thirds being Japanese.
With the USSR suffering about 11,000,000 and China and the Western Allies suffering about 6,000,000 military deaths, an interesting statistic emerges: About two Allied military deaths were required for each Axis military death regardless of which of the Allies was involved.69.230.165.176 21:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)IMS
Interesting indeed, but your original research.--Woogie10w 22:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection policy

Someone has vandalized this page with obvious and unnecessary remarks. Throughout the table of casualties quote "1 hublack people are stupid" over and over again. I would like to nominate this page for a clean up as well as a protection policy lock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by That Asian Guy (talk • contribs) 01:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection is not necessary, vandalism is not that common. User That Asian Guy has never contibuted to this page, he has no right to claim it needs cean up.--Woogie10w 01:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
That latter statement, Woogie10w, is wrong. Any editor may add a cleanup tag. It would be silly to suggest that you need to contribute to do so - what if you come upon some awful page about one of the Pokemon that badly needs a cleanup tag, and you don't know much about the subject yourself? Do you have to sit in front of your computer and research that Pokemon's attacks and weapons and contribute to the page before you feel you have the right to add the cleanup tag? Tempshill (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I am from the old school, I don't have a clue about Pokemon. If an editor proposes a cleaup, then they should discuss the proposed changes here on the talk page.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Google book on Pacific casualties

this link (Imperial Japan's World War Two, 1931-1945) contains tables for deaths in Asia. Hope it's of use! Oberiko 20:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties vs. Fatalities as a title for this article

Should this article be titled Fatalities rather than Casualties. I mean, heavens, we aren't counting the injured too are we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.9.52 (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last soldier killed

There's an interesting article about George Lawrence Price, the last soldier killed in WWI. Does anybody know if there is someone identified as the last soldier killed in WWII? Otebig 00:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The UK includes men who died of wounds up until the end of 1947.--Woogie10w 01:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American civilian deaths

The total American civilian deaths is given as 11,200. However, this includes 9k-ish from the Merchant Marine. Given that the article on the Merchant Marine explicitly states that during war, they are "considered military personnel", shouldn't that number be moved to the military death total? Seems more correct to me. Endersdouble (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baltic States' deaths

It seems that the losses of the Baltic states do not include military deaths. I know that officially these countries were neutral, but people still died, they shouldn't be left out. Same goes for Austria:

Country Population 1939 Military deaths Civilian deaths Jewish Holocaust deaths Total deaths Deaths as % of population
Austria[25] 6,653,000 261,000 40,500 65,000 105,500 15.78%
Estonia[26] 1,134,000 25,000 40,000 1,000 66,000 5.82%
Latvia[27] 1,995,000 25,000 147,000 80,000 252,000 12.63%
Lithuania[28] 2,575,000 20,000 212,000 141,000 373,000 14.49%
They died in the Soviet or German uniforms. They were not fighting for their countries--Woogie10w 18:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
We dont include the French, Polish, Soviets and Czechs in the German Army with their countries. There was one German and one Soviet Army--Woogie10w 18:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This applies to all countries. There were Americans in the RAF, the US had many non citizens in it's ranks, the Japanese drafted Koreans and Tiwanese, the French, British & Italians had Africans in their forces. There are no accurate statistics on the citizenship of the dead. We must treat these military organizations as whole units.--Woogie10w 18:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't think so. Baltic deaths, was baltic death, not german or Russian. The same goes for koreans.

Included with US Army deaths are 2,563 foriegn nationals, they are US military deaths. The UK had men serving in the Armed forces from Ireland, Africa and Asia, they are UK military deaths, we have no reliable breakdown of UK losses by national origin. The same logic applies to ethnic Germans and Austrians in the Wehrmacht, Koreans in the Japanese Army and Baltic peoples in the Soviet Armed forces. Why must this be the case? For two important reasons, One- We do not have accurate inforamtion on the nationality of military casualties, only general estimates for some nations, not for all nations. Two-Readers see that the Armed forces of Germany, Japan, UK and the USSR as whole entities, not mixed in with other nations casualties. In any case when the information is available it is listed in the footnotes--Woogie10w (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Woogie10w is trying to say: Those war dead have already been counted, either under the Soviet or German numbers. They aren't broken out by citizenship; if you can find a reliable source that distinguishes and separates the two, then please do contribute it. Or so I have interpreted. Tempshill (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that breakout military casualties by nationality, only general estimates for some countries.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] more about that table

There alsou must be included victims of Soviet deth camps (gulags) and deportations to far north of siberi, wiht -40 in winter. It was quite a hudge nuber, some milions. Interesting enought, at the start of war, soviets deported as potential traitors all germans and jewish people to the Central Asia. I anderstan, that germans could betray Soviat union, but whay jewish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.118.205.130 (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Soviets lost 26.6 milion, in 1946-91 borders, in excess of the pre-war level of deaths . That would include excess deaths in the Gulag as well as the war casualties. In the footnotes you see that Russian sources today include 3 million excess deaths in the area not occupied by the Germans with war dead. Readers can draw their own judgements regarding this statistic. Famine caused by the war and political repression are the probable reasons for this 3 million increase in deaths in the rear areas--Woogie10w (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Percentage of Axis Casualties Western and Eastern Front

I have been looking into what percentage of German-Axis deaths or casualties were taken on the eastern front against the Soviets vs on the western and North African front against the Other Allies. Does anyone have an idea? Hudicourt (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Check the footnotes for Germany & Italy.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Overmans has data for each month of the war on the Eastern front up until 12/31/45. The combined total for 1945 is 1.2 million for both Western & Eastern fronts. The Overmans German Army study from 2000 has demonstrated that the OKW data generated durning the war is worthless. The Italian data for the Eastern front is broken down by month. Romanian data is broken down in quarterly periods. The data for Hungary is given for 1941 and 1942. 2/3 of Hungarian losses were suffered in 1944-45. What data do you need?--Woogie10w (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Soviet figures for the war are presented in Krivosheev's book. The data for overall losses is disputed. Krivosheev assumes that only 1.3 million Soviet POW died in German hands, western historians put the number at 3 million.
.Using Overmans and Krivosheev it is possible to plot out the loss ratio's durning the war. The only catch is that Krivosheev claims only 3.1 million Soviet dead and missing in 1941, the true figure would be closer to 4 million when you count men who were conscripted but not officialy on the rolls during the chaos of the 1941 campaign. For Germany the final battles durung 1945 in the East as well as the West are combined together. In 1941 the Soviets lost about 4 million KIA/MIA/POW; the Germans about 300,000. Desptite these losses they were able to regroup and eventually defeat the Germans. Overall the Soviets lost about 10 million men vs 8.7 million dead and POW on the Axis side.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties by theatre?

Could I request a few additional sections?

The reason why I request for Asia-Pacific theatre to be broken down is that there are differing opinions if the earlier ones are part of World War II or not. Oberiko (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Figure dropping

I'm just dropping figures here as I find them in case they can be of any use.

According to Eastern Phoenix: Japan Since 1945 by Mikiso Hane, Japanese casualties are the following:

  • 1937 - 1941
    • 185,647 military dead
  • 1941 - 1945
    • 1,140,429 Army
    • 414,879 Navy
    • Up to 650,000 civilian
  • Total deaths: 2.1 million
The figures add up to 2,390,955 not 2.1 million. There is a basic problem with his numbers, they don't add up--Woogie10w (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Japanese war dead include:
Sino-Japanese War 1937-41 185,000
Pacific War 1942-45 1,556,000
Subtotal 1,741,000
Men missing in China, Korea & USSR after war 347,000
Total military casualties 2.1 million
The Pacific war total of 1.556 million DOES NOT include the 347,000 missing men that surrendered in China and Korea and were never accounted for after the war.
Civilian losses:
393,000 air attack deaths
160,000 on Okinawa & Siapan
27,000 Merchant Marine
Total 580,000
Grand Total of about 2.7 million
Sources:
John W. Dower War Without Mercy 1986 ISBN 0-394-75172-8
Nimmo, William. Behind a curtain of silence : Japanese in Soviet custody, 1945-1956, Greenwood 1989 ISBN 9780313257629--Woogie10w (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is a posting on the Axis History Forum from an official Japanese source [29] that ties out to the total of 2.1 million military war dead, the translation is in a posting on the Axis History Forum 23 Oct 2007 23:22 -[30]-Woogie10w (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Data table?

I'm thinking we need a "master data" table, on a seperate page, to store all our statistics. Since there are so many ways that we can present them, I suggest having just five columns:

  • Who - Which faction / nationality. Can be broken down into civilian and military, the latter of which can be broken down into branch of service
  • What - If the number is all casualties, KIA, MIA, wounded or other
  • Where and When - Which theatre / campaign
  • How many
  • Source - Where this information came from

Here would be an example:

Who What Where When How many Source
United States Army KIA Western European Campaign 1941-12-07 - 1946-12-31 116,991 Army Battle Casualties and Nonbattle Deaths in World War II

We would then potentially have hundreds of rows, but it would also mean that we could assemble them however we need for the various articles. Oberiko (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phases

Just thought about scope. Hence, we should probably start with the casualties that are most important for our articles. I would suggest that we do our high level statistics first and then drill down, such as the following:

Faction Type Campaign / theatre KIA & MIA Wounded Source
Axis Military Soviet-German War ?? ?? ??
Atlantic Theatre ?? ?? ??
Asia-Pacific Theatre ?? ?? ??
Other ?? ?? ??
Civilian Soviet-German War ?? ?? ??
Atlantic Theatre ?? ?? ??
Asia-Pacific Theatre ?? ?? ??
Other ?? ?? ??
Allies Military Soviet-German War ?? ?? ??
Atlantic Theatre ?? ?? ??
Asia-Pacific Theatre ?? ?? ??
Other ?? ?? ??
Civilian Soviet-German War ?? ?? ??
Atlantic Theatre ?? ?? ??
Asia-Pacific Theatre ?? ?? ??
Other ?? ?? ??

I figure once we have these, we can start to break it down. Oberiko (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Great idea, Clodfelter’s book would be the best source since it breaks out the casualties by campaign. Also the US Army report, Krivosheev ,the official Italian report and Ellis would be logical sources.
Here is a draft of how this may look:
1939 Polish Campaign:
Forces MEN DIV TANKS GUNS AIRCRAFT
Germany
Poland
Losses: MEN DIV TANKS GUNS AIRCRAFT
Germany
Poland
--Woogie10w (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe we should drop in force levels along with the losses in order to show the correlation of forces and the relative effectivness of the opponents--Woogie10w (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like that would get into Order of battle territory though. Oberiko (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A rough Draft

1939 Polish Campaign

Country Branch of service Force Level Killed/missing Wounded Prisoner of war Equipment Losses
Germany Personnel[6] 1,250,000 13,970 30,220
Tanks[6] 900,000 314,000 349.0
Guns[6] 231,000
Aircraft[7] 215,000
Major Warships (see note below) 6,035,000[7] 11,100,000[6]
Poland Personnel[6] 13,600,000 4,202,000 309.0
Tanks[6] 900,000 314,000 349.0
Guns[6] 231,000
Aircraft[7] 215,000
Major Warships (see note below) 6,035,000[7] 11,100,000[6]

--Woogie10w (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

My concern is scope creep. I'm not oppossed to the idea, but it will balloon our work-load. I would advice also that we keep equipment and personnel seperate, as they don't share all that many fields plus we'd probably lump civilian casualties in with the former. Oberiko (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC) There are very few stats for civilian losses in the military campaigns, that should not be on the schedule, --Woogie10w (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC) I am very busy here in the office @home tonight I will work up my proposal--Woogie10w (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ground Forces Casualties

It seems like if we have this, we might just want to go all the way and include the forces committed where available. I also think your earlier proposal with the references in footnote format work better. Something rather like the following. Oberiko (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Invasion of Poland (1939)
Belligerent Total Forces Armoured Fighting Vehicles Artillary Combat Aircraft
Committed KIA/MIA WIA POW Committed Lost Committed Lost Committed Lost
Germany[6] 1,250,000[7] 16,000[8] 32,000[8] 2,511[8] 674[8] 1,323[8] 285[8]
Poland[6] 800,000[7] 66,300[8] 133,700[8] 787,000[8]

[9]

 475[8] "nearly total"[8] 435[8] 327[8]
Soviet Union[10] 466,516[11] 996[11] 2,383[11] 3,739 tanks[citation needed] 42 tanks[citation needed] 2000[citation needed]
  • Notes
    • Germany
    • Poland
    • Soviet Union

I would keep it at AFVs. While we don't normally have non-tanks, we can always just add them if they're present. The one that's probably going to be a bit of a monkey wrench is artillery. Likely we're going to want to include field-guns if we have that information, but where would we put self-propelled guns? Oberiko (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets add artillary, but losses will be blank in most cases--Woogie10w (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
In the Notes section we can elaborate on the details of the statistics
Here are some of my thoughts on casualties
Forces committed could include combat troops in the field as well as support elements in the rear. The sources are not always clear as to actual breakdown.
Casualties will include wounded that later die as well as wounded who are returned to units. Based on actual experience about 7% die of wounds and 30% are discharged as disabled. The raw statistics from a battle or campaign do not provide this information. Men lost due to disease and accidents also are usually not included with battle casualties. Personnel lost due to tropical disease was a serious problem for the US in 1942, the Germans and Soviets lost many men due to frostbite. In 1944 there was a significant undercounting by the OKW of German losses due to the chaos of the war. According to Overmans the reporting system missed up to 2 million war dead, mostly in 1944-45. The Clodfelter statistics are derived from the unreliable OKW data. On the Soviet side about 1.5 million men were missed in the official statistics due to the chaos in the early part of the war--Woogie10w (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SVG Casualties Chart upgrade

Take a look here : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/WorldWarIICasualties.svg Feedback is more than welcome. TheShadowed (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Alles klar, OK. Very good work. How do we get it on the page?--Woogie10w (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thought you guys would help me out with that! OK, I have it uploaded here

World War II Casualties Chart
World War II Casualties Chart

Wondering why on earth does it not show up in the thumbnail =/

TheShadowed (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, the problem seems to be fixed, thanks to the guys over at the SVG assistance page. The only thing that remains now is to put the image up on the article. How do we handle this? And shall I wait for a response here before putting it up myself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheShadowed (talk • contribs) 12:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The figures for Allied military and Allied civilian have been mixed up. There were more civilian than military casualties, as the bar graph shows, so the pie graph needs to have its captions moved. Chaparral2J (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reporting, my apologies for the stupid mistake. It is fixed now. TheShadowed (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Netherlands Merchant Marine Casualties

I did a Google translation of the section on Netherlands Merchant Marine casualties from the following website that is posted as the source on the main page Nationale Koopvaardijmonument Rotterdam [31]
On Dutch side were more than 7,000 victims during the war. Many of them disappeared in the waves and were given a burial at sea. Among them are more than 3,500 civilian casualties (including over 1,400 with another nationality). They lost their lives in the collapse of a total of nearly 500 Dutch merchant ships. The Netherlands has many monuments to members of the merchant navy who died at sea during the Second World War--Woogie10w (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Omission of Tokyo Bombing Raid

Considering the firebombing of Tokyo is the deadliest single conventional bombing raid in the history of war, I find it strange that it is not mentioned in the footnotes, anywhere else on the page, or in the discussion. Also, the Japan footnote mentions the total number of civilians killed at a total of 900,000 on the Japanese home islands, yet the total in the table is only 580,000. I wonder what other figures are not correct on this page. Jordinho (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The number of civilian deaths on the Japanese Home Islands in 1944 was 1,172,602. In 1945, 2,113,.798. The increase in 1945 being 941,796., including 289,000 from Sept-Dec 1945. The source of these statistics, which can be verified at the NY Public Library, was a report prepared by General McArthur’s Staff.
Annual Changes in Population of Japan Proper 1 October 1920-1 October 1947, General Headquarters for the Allied Powers Economic and Scientific Section Research and Programs Division July 1948--Woogie10w (talk) 10:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
We have reliable and verifiable sources in print, that confirm that Japanese civilian casualties that were about 580,000 as a direct result of the war.
1- John W. Dower War Without Mercy 1986 ISBN 0-394-75172-Dower cites Japanese government data that reported 393,000 civilian deaths as a result of the US strategic bombing campaign; Dower also estimated 150,000 civilian deaths on Okinawa and 10,000 on Siapan.
2- Michael Clodfelter. Warfare and Armed Conflicts- A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 1500-2000. 2nd Ed. 2002 ISBN 0-7864-1204-6. Coldfelter lists 27,000 Japanese merchant marine deaths that were not included in military dead.


3- Annual Changes in Population of Japan Proper 1 October 1920-1 October 1947, General Headquarters for the Allied Powers Economic and Scientific Section Research and Programs Division. Tokyo, July 1948.
This report was prepared by the US military occupation forces in Japan, relied on Japanese government data to detail the losses and transfers of the Japanese population during the war. John W. Dower cited this source in his footnotes. The report listed Japanese civilian deaths for each month for the period 1940 to 1947, deaths were listed for the month they occurred, not the month reported. Deaths on the Japanese home islands from Jan-Aug 1945 exceeded the 1944 level by 652,000 and by 289,000 from Sept. to Aug. 1945. This is in close agreement for direct civilian deaths of 580,000 reported by Dower and Clodfelter. It is not at all surprising that deaths from Sept until Dec 1945 went up by 289,000, taking into account that Japan was devastated by the war, the lack of food, medicine and shelter took its toll, as well as persons dying of war inflicted injuries in the immediate post war period.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If anyone needs additional data from the 1948 Tokyo report, I have a copy.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I still have some problems. First, the 900,000 figure has changed to 650,000 in the notes sections for some reason, which still doesn't match the '580,000' in the table. Also, why is a 60 year old US military report being used to verify the number killed? This site [32] uses a source from 1989, and found that more than a half million were killed in just eight cities. Seeing as how there were dozens of Japanese cities that were mostly destroyed, I find it hard to believe that after adding up low-ball figures for only three cities (at least 100,000 in Hiroshima, 40,000 in Nagasaki and 80,000 in Tokyo) the total civilian dead is just above double that. Am I wrong? Jordinho (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You are wrong, Dower's War Without Mercy has the official Japanese government figure of 393,300 civilian deaths due to air attacks. Dower is a reliable source in print, that can be verified. John W. Dower is a well known and respected scholar who specializes in Japan’s wartime history. The website of Richard Green is not acceptable as a source. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. Who is Richard Green? As for the figure of 650,000, this is the demographic loss suffered by the Japanese from Jan. to Aug. 1945. This would include indirect deaths due to the depravations caused by the war, famine and disese. The figure of 580,000 represents direct losses caused by the bombings, the battles on Okinawa and Siapan and merchant marine losses--Woogie10w (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You scoff at a 60 year old Army report, I took another look at the Japanese figures in that report. In mid 1944 the average number of civilian deaths was 100,000 per month. From Oct. 1944 until Sept. 1946 the average was 145,000 per month. A total increase of 1.1 million civilian deaths caused by the war.--Woogie10w (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There was also a post war bump up in deaths in Germany of 1.4 million, The USSR 1.0 million and Poland 200,000. These are demographic famine and disease losses caused by wartime devestation of the economy.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The Army report from 1948 lists civilian births, deaths and population transfers by month during the war and the postwar period up until Oct 1947. This is raw demographic data that does not give the cause of death. The number killed in air raids is not given. The report needs to be mentioned because it quantifies the demographic losses of Japan during the war and postwar era. --Woogie10w (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The source is not Richard Green it's Martin Gilbert. The description of this article says that 47 million civilians died, including those from disease and famine. However, the table itself says 41.8 million. Am I the only one who thinks that it's ridiculous to have an encyclopedia state two figures for the same item? Am I the only one who thinks it's ridiculous that mere inches away, in the notes below the table it states, "Civilian Deaths - Includes losses from military action and war related deaths caused by famine and disease." That means that the deaths due directly to air raids are only a part of the total, and should be included alongside deaths attributed to the aftereffects of all bombings. Jordinho (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Civilian casualties of 47 million include Jews killed in the Holocaust. An important point to remember is that the big numbers, China, the USSR and Poland have no figures breaking out the components of the losses, only rough estimates. In fact, the figures are demographic estimates for China, the USSR, Poland and Germany. The fine tuning of the numbers that you seek just does not exist. There were no lists of the dead made giving the cause of death. In broad general terms we know about 7 million perished due famine during the war in the USSR and 12 million in Asia.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I plan to pick up a copy of Gilbert's book at the local library tomorrow, in any case I suspect his figures include wounded as well fatalities. We need to see his figures in print.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The schedule lists total civilian deaths, when you bore down into the footnotes you will find the components of the losses. Take Italy for example, they have a meticulous breakout of losses for deaths caused by warfare only, a demographic estimate of famine deaths is not included in Italian figures. On the other hand I mentioned China, the USSR and Poland as having a general demographic loss, with rough estimates of the breakout of the components including famine deaths. We must keep in mind that each country had a different system of reporting losses. There are apples, oranges and lemons on that table; not all peaches.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This Russian language source has detailed breakdowns for civilian and military deaths in all major conflicts in the 20th century that you are requesting. Civilian losses are listed separately for bombing, & shelling , political repression and wartime famine. Military dead in battle and POW deaths are broken out. However, the numbers are from Russian and Soviet sources that are not always in agreement with estimates one would see in western countries.
Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5-93165-107-1--Woogie10w (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another source

Just thought I'd post that during research for the technology section, I came across Encyclopedia of World War II: A Political, Social, and Military History, which on pg. 300 has a section on casualties. Hope it's of some use. Oberiko (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems interesting, what information does this source have? do they cite the sources of their data or is it just another list of numbers?--Woogie10w (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It has a pretty good collection of numbers (most of which are in a table) and it does list references, actually, quite a large number of them. Sorry I haven't been available, I'm a bit more pressed for time then I thought I would be. Case-in-point, I've only just now finished a section of an article that I started back in February. Oberiko (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)