Talk:Western Front (World War II)

German figures?

The German figures seem unusually high after going through the individual campaigns of the western front. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmoloney (talk • contribs) 21:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

They are too high. Rudiger Overmans whom he sites actually says something different then what is sited and what he says is even featured in the new page on German casualties. He includes figures of soldiers who were dead and missing including in POW camps which is why he gives a number of around 400,000 with an error of margin of + or - 200,000 witch to me shows how faulty the research for his book is. He then breaks down that number into died in allied POW camps, which can be broken down by country which add up to US 22,000, British 21,000 and French 34,000 and and about 2,000 others which equals 76,000. Next we can expect desserters and missing but in captivity to be in the tens of thousands some of which served as mercinaries in the 1st Indo China. The number 339,000 for German dead up to December 31 1944 on the Western Front includes around 79,000 that died from taking part in the 1940 campaign in France and the Low Countries and so can be discarded here for our purposes. The total dead for 1944 from 6 June to 31 December he states is around 238,000 plus 410,000 for 1945 would equal actually 648,000 possible dead and missing from the Western Front starting June 6th 1944 until 8 September 1945 when POWs where mostly sent home. Overmanns somehow is able to come up with numbers right down to the last digit. If you begin with 638,000 minus 76,000 who died as POWs, though I believe that number to be too great, and remove about 60,000 missing from their units in all the chaos but alive minus 60,000 dead from other cause you come up with total combat loses of around 440,000 dead for the entire Western Front between June 1944 and May 1945.(1) The way the article was written the reader would come away with the false belief that while only around 90,000 died on the Allied side for 1945 almost 5 times as many died on the other side.* I would also refer to G.I. Krivasheev who stated that although around 1 million German soldiers died in 1945 almost all of them died on the Soviet Front.(3) To shed more light on the subject I included Krivosheev's casualty figures below.

1. Hintergrund Rheinwiesenlager, Militär und Geschichte Oktober/Noverber 2021 p.18

2. Soviet Casualties and Combat Loses in the Twentieth Century, G.F. Krivosheev 1997 pp.272-278

• On 26 January 1945 Eisenhower announced to his staff that the Allied Armies had suffered 98,600 dead, 389,783 wounded and 74,434 missing in action since the invasion began. If 50,000 were prisoners then that means that around 125,000 were dead then this would indicate that another 65,000 would be killed in action by the end of the war.

Krivosheev believes that according to archive material in Germany and in the former Soviet Union that in all the armed forces of Germany suffered over 13,000,000 permanent loses including captured. These can be broken down as

                     Dead and Missing:  5.1 million
                     Injured or disabled: over 6 million
                     Eastern Front: around 4 million dead
                     All Other Battle Fronts over 1 million dead     
                                                

Something the author of this page sould take under consideration. The Imperial Japanese Army's loses in dead and missing are about the same for the the 3 years + of fighting in the Pacific as is listed here for the Wehrmact and Waffen SS for fighting less than 11 months on the Western Front in Europe. The number of Allied dead from all causes is also higher in the Pacific and China Burma India Theater with at least 147,000 American dead, 82,000 British Empire, 17,000 Australian, around thirty thousand Phillipino and 46,000 Chinese Coolies and some 87,000 British Raj (Indian). Are we to believe that with 195,000 dead on the Allied side that nearly as many Germans as IJA soldiers during the entire Pacific War would parish even though the loss ratio on the Western Front was around 1:1.4 or 1:2 and sometimes favored the Germans and the Germans fought far more economically, concerning loses, and smarter and for a shorter period than the Japanese? If indeed there were large numbers of dead and missing on the West Front for 1945 I would say that an emphasis should be placed on the word 'missing' as many Germans recruited into service in the lost Eastern Provinces were more likely to be listed as "Where abouts unknown" after the war. It can be assumed that many stayed in the west to start a new life. Many may not have returned from captivity in Texas or the United Kingdom or from France opting for a new and better life than they could find in a ruined Germany. Professor Overmans research did not include a large enough sample of wounded in order to come up with a more accurate estimate of dead and missing from 1945 and from some of the other fronts where fighting was fierce.(1) I would suggest reading G.F. Krivosheev's book after his.

1. Overmanns, Rüdiger Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweitem Weltkrieg 3rd edition 2004 pp. 274-287 FaladaHart78 (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you. Articles about the Western Front and the Pacific War need serious edits. The person below wrote about 58,000 British dead on the Western Front instead of the 41,000 in the article. You also need to find a source claiming the death of 171,000 Americans in the Pacific. Because with all due respect to the strength of the US Army, the number of 92,000 Americans killed in the Pacific is just laughable. We will soon find out that the United States has no losses at all. At most one soldier cut himself in Okinawa while opening a can. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

In principle I have no trouble in correcting and/or disputing the numbers of victims. But it works both ways: you have to give reason (with at least some evidence) why the present numbers are inaccurate. And from there, we can work on improving the numbers. The Banner talk 20:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, firstly, it is indicated that 93k died in battle, which implies that these are only combat losses, and non-combat ones seem to be ignored.Secondly, if we take into account that a total of 405k soldiers died in World War II, now let’s take the numbers of losses on the fronts of the fight against Germany: 147k dead and missing on the Western Front, almost 3k dead in Africa, almost 30k dead in Italy, 9k dead sailors in the Atlantic, which gives a total of 189k dead in the war with Germany, I took these figures from articles on Wikipedia, and no one seems to argue with them. Logically, the remaining 216k died in the war with Japan.Thirdly, even if we assume that I overestimated US losses in the war with Japan. Let’s take this source, which is often referred to. It states that 318k people died in the US Army: 207k on the fronts of the war with Germany, 40k on US territory, and 71k in the war with Japan. But these are the losses of the army, but the losses were among the Marines and the Navy. The number of dead sailors is 62.5k, the number of dead marines is 24.5k, most of them died in the war with Japan. If we add up the losses of the army, navy and marines, we get a number of approximately 158k.Fourthly, this is, of course, completely objectivism and not an argument. If you look at the table of Japanese losses, you can come to the conclusion that approximately 1.3 million Japanese died in the fight against the United States. The article says 93k Americans died. With all due respect to the US Army, I highly doubt they were able to defeat the Japanese with a casualty ratio of 1:14. And as a result, although it is unprovable, most likely the United States lost approximately 40-50% of the casualties of all those killed in WWII, but these are my guesses.But in any case, the number of 93k dead Americans sounds like nonsense and does not fit in with logic. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

On what page did you find that number, as I can not find it? What I find is (see page 8):

European theatre: 586,628 total battle casualties
Total battle casualties: 586,628
Total deaths among battle casualties: 135,576
Killed in action: 116,991
Wounded and injured in action: 381,350

The Banner talk 21:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

On page 97, the army's losses in theaters of combat are described. If you specifically ask about the European Front, the source indicates 152k dead, which does not differ much from the numbers in the article. If we take the Pacific Ocean, about which we have so much controversy, then we get the number of 71k dead in the army in the war against Japan. 95.25.206.238 (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

You mean under "BATTLE AND NON-BATTLE DEATHS"? The Banner talk 21:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, combat losses: he died at the hands of the enemy, died from his wounds in the hospital. Non-combat: died from disease or accident 95.25.206.238 (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Or got killed in a car accident? The Banner talk 22:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, this is also a non-combat loss Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I am looking for evidence for the German casualties in 1945 because they are simply too high. I contacted Professor Overmans per email and he said he could not breakdown for me how many he thought were dead from other causes, other than his estimates for POW deaths, how many were missing but likely to later be found alive either in Indo-China, North America or West Germany or how many had actually died from combat but said that he believed more or less that the number was acurate. In the mean time could you change the wording on the chart from "Dead" to "Dead and Missing" under German Casualties like it is for Allied Casualties. That might clear up some confusion for readers seeing that there is a large gap between the two numbers given. FaladaHart78 (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I went to "Army Battle Casualties and non Battle Deaths in World War II" You find there that 214,000 US Soldiers died in the ETO from ALL causes while 82,000 died in the Pacific theaters. The naval stats were at http://www.history.navy.mil/library/onlinestatistics.htm (broken link) US Navy loses in the Pacific are 39,984 from all causes. I then added all 26,000 Maries and the total for the pacific is 147,000 dead from all causes. It seems that I had been wrong about the other number but I can't remember where I had read it. Most likely a book I have or had and gave away. Add 39,000 CONUS and over 2000 in transit and you have 402,000 dead which seems correct. FaladaHart78 (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems that you are interested in and understand the losses of countries during the Second World War. And I would like to discuss them with you. I'll start in order

1) USA. Maybe I’m inattentive, but in “Combat and non-combat deaths of the United States in World War II” I discovered that those who died from all causes in Europe were 202 thousand, not 214 thousand.And it seems I’ve already come across your link regarding naval losses. And if my memory serves me correctly, it was indicated that a total of 51 thousand died in the Asia-Pacific region. That is, approximately 160 thousand Americans died in the war with Japan, which is what I tried unsuccessfully to prove.And it’s also very strange that almost 40 thousand soldiers died in the United States, that is, 10%, which seems quite large, but oh well, this is a lyrical digression. I think that 205 thousand Americans died in the war with Germany, 160 thousand and 40 thousand in the United States are objective figures. Someday I will indicate in an article about the Pacific War the number of 160 thousand Americans killed, but then.

2) Japan. Since it seems that you understand the topic, I would like to know your opinion. Do you think it’s correct that out of 2,121,000 Japanese dead, 1.3 million died in the war with the United States and its non-Chinese and non-Soviet allies, 500k in the war with China, and 300+k in the war with the USSR (300k died in captivity)

3) Germany. Regarding the Western Front, I think the numbers in the article are objective. Germany lost 5.3 million killed on all fronts: 4.3 million on the Eastern Front, 150k in Italy, 20k in Africa, 36k in the Atlantic and 700k on the Western European Front. That is, 4.3 million Germans died in the war with the Russians and approximately 1 million or a little more in the war with the USA and Great Britain. The only, I would even say rhetorical question, was whether the Volkssturm was really considered. For the same 300k Volkssturm dead seems underestimated. And the real losses are not 5.3 million, but 6. But this is my speculation.

4) Great Britain.Regarding UK losses, I have 2 questions for you. You previously said that the British lost 58k on the Western Front, say these 58k dead, did you mean the total dead in 1939-1940 and 1944-1945, or only in 1944-1945. And I would ask you to show the source from where you got the number of 58k dead British people. Thank you in advance. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

There were also naval and merchant marine loses in the ETO but these are mostly estimates. For the Pacific about 1.4 million Japanese died in the Pacific and CBI theaters where 147,000 or 160,000 US, 82,000 British Empire, 17,000 AUS, 30,000 Philippine, 46,000 Chinese and 87,000 Indian service members died which adds up to around 400,000 for all Allied servicemen in both theaters. This shows a ratio of 3 1/2: 1 in favor of the Allies. Only one millitary historian, Overmans, has claimed that Germany lost 5.3 million in dead and missing. The Wehrmacht issued a communique on May 22nd 1945 stating 4.6 million dead and missing and 5 million injured or disabled. Grigory F. Krivosheev in his Soviet Casualties and Combat Loses in the Twentieth Century from 1997 has stated that that number was slightly lower than the actual death toll but working from the captured Wehrmacht archives and the many demographic studies from Germany, Austria, Czech and Western Poland claims that it might be as high as 5.1 million but not higher. He also gives a number of 6 million injured or disabled. I believe it is no more than 5 million dead and 6.5 million injured and disabled. Overmans claims that only 78,000 Volkssturm fell in the fighting. He also claims the there were 900,000 foreign dead including Austrians while G.F. Krivaoheev adds 215,000 Soviet volunteers which would mean 1.1 million non Germans and 4 million Germans from the 1937 borders. I side with the more traditional belief that about 900,000 died on ALL other fronts outside of the Soviet Front and that 300,000 to 500,000 dead AND missing can be assigned to the West Front of 1944-45. The larger number would include a greater mortality from other causes in 1945 including POW deaths which I believe are around 40,000 or only slightly more numerous. British loses are for 1940 and 1944-45 but do not include missing which would mean a considerbly higher number. Their deaths for the ETO could be as high as for the Americans. FaladaHart78 (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting conversation. I would like to ask you to correct the article about the Pacific War, that the United States lost 160 thousand killed for all reasons. It’s just that my edits are removed there as a matter of principle, and the article only indicates losses in battle, which means the authors of the article are publishing biased, underestimated data. And regarding Britain, I would like to talk to you about the losses not in the entire European theater, but specifically on the Western Front.I would be grateful if you would share with me the fate of the 58 thousand British dead. It’s just such a confusion, on all WWII fronts the British lost 245k killed, 50k seem to have died in the Atlantic, 35k in Africa, 18k on the Pacific front, 4k in the Balkans, and 20k in Italy. Simply, according to the logic of things, the British should lose about 115k killed there. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

British Empire troops lost 82,000 in the Pacific-China Burma India theaters which would mean that most were Englishmen with some Burmese and Indians serving in regiments. I believe that they lost 30,000 in Italy. I can't be so sure if the number 58,000 includes aircrews. As for making changes, I would have to first come up with ironclad proof for citations because they take my changes down too. They would not even let me change a biography of an aquaintance citing a judge's ruling on a certain controversy involving the subject. He was misrepresented in a sensationalist hit piece not worthy of anyone's time or patience. I plan on doing more research after the new year including figures for the Korean War. I will look into making changes to the Pacific War article but don't expect much from the narrow-minded authors who cling too tightly to their prejudices. FaladaHart78 (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, if the authors of the article seem to have an authoritative source-historian who only indicates combat losses, which means underestimated losses, that’s their right. Maybe in a year or two it will turn out that there were basically no US losses in the Pacific, well, at most one Marine cut himself in Okinawa. Lord, what crap they feed readers, and they are happy Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

British losses

Great Britain lost 384k soldiers in WWII, the article states that England lost only 40 thousand on the Western Front (10 thousand in 1940-1941 and 30 thousand in 1944-1945), but shouldn’t the Western Front be the most bloody for England? Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

384 thousand for the British Empire. Just 245,000 for the United Kingdom although you are right they are to low. According to their own records the British lost 58,000 dead in NW Europe and the Canadians another 33,000 dead including pilots while the Australians lost 9,000 + dead for the period 1940-1945. FaladaHart78 (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you share the source? I would like to make the appropriate changes to the article Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Canada

I removed Canada from the list of Allies since it is included in the United Kingdom before I saw your note about posting it here first. Sstaley1 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Since Australia and India among others weren’t on the list of Allies and I know they were in WWII, I assumed you meant to include them in the United Kingdom category, along with Canada. Officially, though, the United Kingdom is only comprised of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

I looked up the name of Britain in WWII and it was called the “British Empire and the Commonwealth.” Britain's declaration of war automatically committed India, the Crown colonies, and the protectorates, but the 1931 Statute of Westminster had granted autonomy to the Dominions so each decided their course separately. The 5 Dominions include the UK, Australia, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand. Sstaley1 (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Revert

Her The Banner - Please explain why this revert is in the "best interest of the article". Why is a single refimprove banner at the top of the article inferior to plastering the article with 4 section banners. Also, why do you think the article should ignore the MOS? Kindly revert your edit. Thanks.. Parsecboy (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Because asking an improvement of references only at the top of the page will not provide the sources on the places where they are actually needed. The Banner talk 16:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

So why didn't you just undo that part of my edits? Why did you roll everything back? Parsecboy (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Since you don't appear to be interested in further discussion (or any at all, for that matter), I'm going to restore my edits. Parsecboy (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes people have work to do and find newborn kittens on their couch. Beside that, your aggressive tone did not sit well with me. I have restored the source request to the places where the sources are needed. The Banner talk 10:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

You've had [Special:Contributions/The_Banner plenty of time to do other things]; and asking you to explain your reasoning and that you undo your poorly conceived revert was hardly aggressive. Your response, on the other hand, was quite rude. In any event, what's so special about those four sections? There are several others that lack referencing, and the rest of the article isn't exactly well-cited either. Parsecboy (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I still do not like your tone. The Banner talk 11:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

You’ve been nothing but hostile for this entire interaction, have largely refused to explain your actions, and my tone is the problem. Right.

If you aren’t interested in actually discussing the article, why did you suggest we come to the article’s talk page in the first place? Parsecboy (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)