Talk:German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

I agree, the tertiary source removed. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• Estimate of the a German Commission Talk topic -- Woogie's response: Go for it, delete, it is a redundant tertiary source--Woogie10w (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Ann Applebaum quote -- Woogie's response: Go for it, delete, it is a redundant tertiary source--Woogie10w (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• Estimate of the a German Commission Talk topic -- Woogie's response: Go for it, delete, it is a redundant tertiary source--Woogie10w (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Ann Applebaum quote -- Woogie's response: Go for it, delete, it is a redundant tertiary source--Woogie10w (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

What is the section about?Xx236 (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some parts are repetitious. Probably the worst wikipedia article I have read. 220.233.199.227 (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]