Talk:German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Needs Reworking[edit]

This page needs some serious reworking. The lead comprises the majority of the page and it doesn't follow normal Wikipedia formatting. I will work some; however, I am not very familiar with the topic.Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Conditions[edit]

Similiar to the article about german POW in the United States, this article should contain a section about the conditions for the POW in the camps, which were extremly harsh and had a very high death toll. Thats a fact which I think should not be forgotten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.132.60.58 (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Penguin "Historical Atlas of the Third Reich"

German POW's in western hands.

Total captured: In Northwest Europe - 7294539 In Italy/Austria - 1425000 In Africa - 371000

Death: In american hands - 793239 In french - 314000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.171.115.103 (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What you wrote is not true, a blatant falsehood, I checked this book on Amazon.com.[1] On Page 113 they do not have the figures you list for deaths.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/dgykadfoqZw Strange, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.171.115.103 (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Blog is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia. You can check at[2] On Page 113 they do not have the figures you list for deaths amazon.com Historical-Atlas-Third-Reich--Woogie10w (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

SS returnees?[edit]

How many if many of those who returned were members of the SS? Did the Soviets have a different policy for such men and if so what was what? Historian932 (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I have never seen stats on Waffen SS POWs returned by the USSR. I did meet an ex Waffen SS veteran over 40 years ago who survived in the USSR as a POW and returned to Germany. He was from Slovakia and spoke Slovak which is close to Ukrainian. He attributed his survival to his language skills and his experience in the construction industry prior to the war. He looked at my hands which are soft, he said young man you would not survive a week in the Soviet camps--Woogie10w (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Soviet POW in German hands[edit]

I have added a link, in the See also section, to the article on Sovietr POWs captured by the Germans, in order to provide some balance to the article. While I belive that the treatment of German POWs captured by the Soviets was terrible, the simple facts (such as comparison of the overall survival rates) indicate that the treatment of Soviet POWs in German hands was even worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.0.53.131 (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

French prisoners of war in World War II GA-nominated[edit]

Please participate in the review here: Talk:French prisoners of war in World War II/GA1. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 05:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"Estimate of a German commission..." in the section "German POWs in the USSR" - clarification needed[edit]

Original text: An estimate by a West German commission[1] states that almost a million of German prisoners died in the Soviet camps between 1941 and 1952.[2]

References

  1. ^ The Black Book of Communism Nicolas Werth, Karel Bartošek, Jean-Louis Panné, Jean-Louis Margolin, Andrzej Paczkowski, Stéphane Courtois, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, Harvard University Press, 1999, hardcover, 858 pages, ISBN 0-674-07608-7, page 322
  2. ^ German POWs and the Art of Survival

Does this refer to the same commission as in "German estimates | The West German government set up the Maschke Commission to investigate..."?

If yes, then the first sentence is redundant and I'd like to remove it. If not, then the name of the commission and date should be included and the sentence moved to section "German estimates." Further, www.historynet (German POWs and the Art of Survival) link is dead and what it says cannot be verified.

Thoughts? --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Go for it, delete, it is a redundant tertiary source--Woogie10w (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Ann Applebaum quote[edit]

Original text: "In the few months of 1943, death rates among captured POWs hovered to 60 percent ... Similar death rates prevailed among Soviet soldiers in German captivity: the Nazi-Soviet war was truly a fight to the death."

I'd like to remove this quote as representative of non-neutral POV. The article is not a place for comparative studies of Stalinism and Natzism.

Thoughts? --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Go for it, delete, it is a redundant tertiary source--Woogie10w (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Saxony, Bohemia - clarification needed[edit]

Original text: "Heinz Nawratil maintains that U.S. forces refused to accept the surrender of German troops in Saxony and Bohemia, and instead handed them over to the Soviet Union."


It now reads as some sort of perfidy on the part of the US forces, but they may have been executing the Allied agreement on the occupation zones - that the German forces were to surrender (and/or possibly be handed over?) to the armed forces in control of a particular occupation zone.

Saxony: As World War II drew to its end, U.S. troops under General George Patton conquered the western part of Saxony in April 1945, while Soviet troops conquered the eastern part. That summer, the entire state was handed over to Soviet forces as agreed in the London Protocol of September 1944. (from: Saxony)

Bohemia: I believe the same same applied to Bohemia - as future part of Czechoslovakia, it must have been in the Soviet occupation zone.

Also: "According to Edward Peterson, the U.S. chose to hand over several hundred thousand German prisoners to the Soviet Union in May 1945 as a "gesture of friendship"" - the area is not specified, but the same policy may have applied.

Other editors here who are more familiar with the subject - can you please clarify? --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

NYT article[edit]

Original text: "... it is known that 6,000 German officers were sent from the West to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp which at the time was one of the NKVD special camp and from which it is known that there were transfers further east to Siberia." (sourced from: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/17/world/ex-death-camp-tells-story-of-nazi-and-soviet-horrors.html)

The article shows that 6,000 officers represented 10% of the camp inmates. The rest were "Nazy functionaries." The article also states: "A diary of a German officer imprisoned at Sachsenhausen survived after he threw it out a train window on his way east to Siberia."

So it's one officer, who is 'known' to have been transferred to Siberia (which may or may not be the case, since he may not have known at the time the diary concluded that he was indeed being sent to Siberia.) He may be an SS officer (Waffen-SS) and/or a war criminal. Therefore the implication of the above statement that, perhaps, the 6,000 officers faced the same fate is sweeping.

In summary: I believe "...and from which it is known that there were transfers further east to Siberia." should be removed as not encyclopedic in nature. Thoughts? --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The NY Times got it right, Soviet documents released in 1990 report that 6,680 prisoners in the Special Camps were transferred to POW status. The POW camps were all over the USSR., not just Siberia. --Woogie10w (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. That portion reads better now. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes to article[edit]

@My very best wishes: Please see the Talk sections above: Ann Applebaum quote, Estimate of a German commission...

The prior consensus achieved with @Woogie10w: had lead to the removal of the content in question, since the sources used were deemed "redundant tertiary sources." I would like to revisit your reinstatement of these sections. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the tertiary source removed. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. However, that does not fully address my concerns. The Black Book of Communism and Gulag: A history were also deemed "redundant tertiary sources." K.e.coffman (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
This is a secondary source and needed to source the claim about West German commission. What's the problem? My very best wishes (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@My very best wishes:Black book of communism and Gulag: A history are both tertiary sources, as they studied communism and the Gulag respectively, and not the German POWs. I would like to remove them per the prior consensus achieved. Moreover, the use of the Black book is misplaced, since there's a dedicated section below that deals with the German estimates. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
No, they are not secondary sources by any means, and they do tell about German POW - as quoted. I can double check what they tell however. There was no consensus to remove these sources. My very best wishes (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes, please do. Also, please see above for Woogie's comments on both:

This qualifies as "prior consensus," does it not? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I checked. This should stay for two reasons: (a) the well-known book by historians is a better source than BBC (although it provides essentially the same numbers), and (b) the numbers from the book by Anne Applebaum are different, so it's better to have them too since matter is controversial (it's better to provide a range of numbers). This is not redundant. No question, all these books qualify as secondary WP:RS. P.S. These are not "recent changes". My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Could you please check which source 570,000 is footnoted to? That would help determine whether Applebaum is secodary or tertiary source when it comes to German POWs. While you are doing that, I would like to remove the second part of the quote, as not pertinent to the article "...Similar death rates prevailed among Soviet soldiers in German captivity: the Nazi-Soviet war was truly a fight to the death." This is selective quoting, since "similar death rates" statement from Applebaum applies to the period of early 1943 (after Germans were taken prisoner at Stalingrad), while 60% death rate for Soviet POW is the overall mortality rate for the entire war. Even if we take the highest overall estimate (25%?), 25% is not 'similar' to 60% for Soviet POWs. (In any case, my initial objection to this quote was due to it being not NPOV).
Separately, what does the Black book of communism say about the German commission? Original text: "An estimate by a West German commission[1] states that almost a million of German prisoners died in the Soviet camps between 1941 and 1952." My original comment about this was: Does this refer to the same commission as in "German estimates | The West German government set up the Maschke Commission to investigate..."? If yes, then the first sentence is redundant and I'd like to remove it. If not, then the name of the commission and date should be included and the sentence moved to section "German estimates."
Further, now that you removed the dubious source, the 1 mil statement is not supported by any sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The 1 mil number (according to West German government commission) appears in "Black book". Therefore, the book is needed for sourcing statement that appears in the section different from "German estimates". The numbers in both books are generally (although not always exactly) consistent with other sources, but using more RS is encouraged per WP:NPOV. Why do you insist on removing these books? My very best wishes (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I believe it's the other way around. I deleted these statements/sources at Woogie's suggestion, please see:

This qualifies as "prior consensus," does it not? You are the one who's insisting on keeping these sources, and I am (understandably) asking you to justify them. On the "estimate of a West German commission," how is that not a "German estimate" if it quotes a *German* commission as having provided this estimate? Further, I've asked you to please specify which source Applebaum is using for her number. The statement is footnoted to another source. I believe it's pertinent to the determination of whether or not Gulag: A History is a secondary or tertiary source. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

He tells a source meaning the source I already removed. All secondary sources refer to a lot of other sources. That does not make them tertiary. These are not "recent changes". You made recent changes. My very best wishes (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm quoting Woogie again:
  • Ann Applebaum quote -- Woogie's response: Go for it, delete, it is a redundant tertiary source--Woogie10w (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Woogie specifically advised me to remove Applebaum as a "redundant tertiary source" (not just one source, as you say), or are you disputing that? That qualified as consensus at the time. I understand that you have a different position. However, I don't believe it's the right one in the context of this article, as Applebaum is discussing Axis POWs as a whole: "According to Anne Applebaum, at least 570,000 Axis powers POW died in Soviet custody and that the real totals may be higher. In the few months of 1943, death rates among captured POWs hovered to 60 percent." Without a further breakdown into German, Hungarian, Italian POWs, Applebaum's number is pointless. Further, this may be confusing to some readers, as then the article seems to equate Axis POWs with German POWs. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, I checked the book by Anne Applebaum. She refers to official Soviet statistical data as provided in a book by Zagorulko that was written specifically about POW in the Soviet Union and published in 2000. Based on context, she refers only or primarily to German POWs, so I fixed this part. Given that numbers are at least partly different from that in other sources and the book qualifies as a scholarly secondary RS, I am now completely convinced that in must remain in this article. My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This statement is your WP:OR: "Based on context, she refers only or primarily to German POWs" - please see the quote from Applebaum There's nothing in this quote to indicate that she's talking "only" or "primarily" about German POWs. The previous version of the article was the correct one. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
No, it is now included exactly as in source, i.e. simply "POWs" and in the same context. Here is Russian source used in the book of Aplebaum (if I am not mistaken), and it looks to me as a primary source - a collection of archive documents. My very best wishes (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

My very best wishes here is the data you can read

[3] In Krivosheev go to Людские потери противника there are two tables one for Europe and one Japan. They add up to the 581K

I really don't care if Applebaum and the Black Book stay or not, for many readers sources in English are preferred. --Woogie10w (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the Zagorulko source (Prisoners of war in the Soviet Union . 1939-1956) - thank you for providing it; this may be a good source for the article. Zagorulko's number of POW dead is 580,000 for all Axis forces, not German ones specifically. Since this article is about German POWs, this number has no place here, as the article now conflates Axis POWs with German POWs.
I will look to see what Zagorulko says about German POWs specifically. Just an FYI, alongside the 580,000 number, Zagorulko also gives his estimate of Axis POW dead in Soviet captivity as 15%. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, please fix it as you think it should be. I will possibly check this more carefully later. My very best wishes (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you; I will remove both sources/statements as not pertinent (Applebaum) or misplaced (Black Book). It may be a good idea to add Zagorulko estimates later on. His study is based on documents recently made available in the Russian archives, so it's a good work to illustrate the current research by Russian historians. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

OK I am glad to see that you guys fixed it, I can't do all the work. --Woogie10w (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

German POWs in the USSR[edit]

The name is very similar to the name of the article, it should be changed.Xx236 (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)