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 the number 410,000. 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 He then says that 180,000 more soldiers were mising in French captivity and many were used as slave labor inside France or as mercinaries in the 1st Indo China war but survied listing only 34,000 dead in French captivity mostly from the area around Straßburg. 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 June to 31 December he states is around 238,000 plus 410,000 for 1945 would equal actually 648,000 dead from and missing from the Western Front starting June 6th until the end of the war. By the way for someone who uses samples, and too few at that, Overmanns somehow is able to come up with numbers right down to the last digit. Now for the math we take 638,000 minus 180,000 which on page 286 he claims were likly to be found alive and in French Captivity, some of whom were later sent to fight with the Foreign Legion in Indochina, minus 34,000 dead POWs in camps near Straßburg minus 42,000 other POWs leaves 398,000 for the Western Front between June 1944 and May 1945. That is to say combat loses and died from wounds which is far more reasonable than saying nearly a half million Wehrmacht soldiers died fighting or otherwise from January 1 1945 while the article claims around thirty thousand dead on the Allied side for 1945 which is also wrong being far to low. 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. The poster bellow is right. This article is a mess. FaladaHart78 (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Here is something else to think about which the author of this page dosen't take into any consideration, how is it that the Imperial Japanese Army's loses are about the same for the the 3 years + of fighting in the Pacific as 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 with 171,000 American dead, 82,000 British Empire, 45,000 ANZAC and 46,000 Chinese Coolies. How is one to believe that with 195,000 dead on the Allied side, to low because it only gives US and British deaths, that 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? Also how is it that today Ukraine, while fighting a superpower, Russia, which can see at night and through cloud covering and dense forest can lose less soldiers in 1 1/2 years than a far smarter and more resourceful army which could use darkness, inclement weather and forest covering to evade artillery and fighter bombers? How is it that the author does not stop using Overmanns flawed book as a source? Overmanns used flawed research to come up with a much larger number to explain why Germans recruited into service in the lost Eastern Provinces were more likely to be listed as "Where abouts unknown" after the war. Yeah, brilliant! Maybe they moved to the west to start a new life and so were unavailable to answer a questionaire until 1950 or so. Either way 410,000 did NOT perish in the wst during the year 1945. There is NO historical research or evidence to back up Overmanns claims. NONE! 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)

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. 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)