Russian Military losses

Discussions on all aspects of the USSR, from the Russian Civil War till the end of the Great Patriotic War and the war against Japan. Hosted by Art.
Samuel
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: 30 Jan 2004 08:49
Location: Europe

Post by Samuel » 25 Apr 2004 22:03

Darrin wrote:p 85 This table shows what irecoverable losses the soviets had by category. Notice it says 11.5 mil irrecoverable losses. Since 2.8 mil people retruned either durung or after the war the actual maximum deaths ie permanent losses is 8.7 million. This includes not only all reported deaths for ALL reasons but also a huge number of people who disapperd never to be heard again. Around 1.9 milllon above and beyond the offical 6.8 mil dead. This represents a 30% increase in non rep dead over offical dead.

Its also slightly interesting to note that the unrecorderd IR I mentioned earlier at 1.2 million are dwarfed by the unreported dead. The unreported dead are actually 50% larger then the unrecorded IR.
A huge number of Soviet PoWs died in German captivity. If you also consider that some casualities recored as MIA were actually KIA there is nothing strange or surprising about the 1.9 million difference.

Samuel
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: 30 Jan 2004 08:49
Location: Europe

Post by Samuel » 25 Apr 2004 22:03

Darrin wrote:Kriovsheev did have a seperate check that in this table. He says 34.5 mil troops served in the army during the war. Since 21.6 mil left for one reason or another during the war we should have 12.9 milion at the end of the war. Then you look at the end of the war they had 12.8 million which is extemly close to what he predicted. Within 1% while this seems impressive it almost seems too impresive for the russian who had such a hard time keeping such exact track of thier casulties.

Its also interesting to point out the unrecorded cas from Table 56 above of 1.2 mil is strangly absent from this new table. In truth if we are to believe all his numbers there were acccurte then it would be 34.5-21.7 which equaels 12.8. Then subtract the extra est unrecorded cas 12.8 - 1.2 = 11.6 mil. Which means the number of troops at the end of the war is over a MILLION higher then it should have been???

Somthing is obviously wrong in his numbers.
I can't see anything wrong with his numbers. But something is wrong with your numbers.

Acorrding to Krivosheev Table A page 91 (In thousands):
Total drafted: 34,476.7
Left the service for various reasons 21,636.9
Difference: 12,839.8

12,839.8 is exactly the number in the army an navy at the end of the war.

The 1.2 (actually 1.1626) million unrecorded casualties are already included in the numbers given in Table A page 91. There is no reason to substract them twice from the total of drafted people.

Darrin
Member
Posts: 831
Joined: 17 Apr 2002 10:44
Location: Canada

Post by Darrin » 25 Apr 2004 23:26

Samuel wrote:
Darrin wrote:Kriovsheev did have a seperate check that in this table. He says 34.5 mil troops served in the army during the war. Since 21.6 mil left for one reason or another during the war we should have 12.9 milion at the end of the war. Then you look at the end of the war they had 12.8 million which is extemly close to what he predicted. Within 1% while this seems impressive it almost seems too impresive for the russian who had such a hard time keeping such exact track of thier casulties.

Its also interesting to point out the unrecorded cas from Table 56 above of 1.2 mil is strangly absent from this new table. In truth if we are to believe all his numbers there were acccurte then it would be 34.5-21.7 which equaels 12.8. Then subtract the extra est unrecorded cas 12.8 - 1.2 = 11.6 mil. Which means the number of troops at the end of the war is over a MILLION higher then it should have been???

Somthing is obviously wrong in his numbers.
I can't see anything wrong with his numbers. But something is wrong with your numbers.

Acorrding to Krivosheev Table A page 91 (In thousands):
Total drafted: 34,476.7
Left the service for various reasons 21,636.9
Difference: 12,839.8

12,839.8 is exactly the number in the army an navy at the end of the war.

The 1.2 (actually 1.1626) million unrecorded casualties are already included in the numbers given in Table A page 91. There is no reason to substract them twice from the total of drafted people.



Try reading my second paragraph again. Then go look at table 56 and try to find the unrecorded cas losses he list there in table A p 91. If you can see it you must be using spceial glasses that us normal people don't have access to.


If you are trying to suggest that the unrecorded cas are included in the overall total of people who left the army. You might notice that the total is broken down to exact subgroup. All these are exactly definded, reported and added toghether to get the total. When I open my dictionary this certainly doesn't sound like the definiton of 'unrecorded' anything. Maybe you could tell us what dictionary you are using?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6965
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Post by Michael Kenny » 25 Apr 2004 23:36

Darrin:

"Maybe you could tell us what dictionary you are using?"


I hope it is not the same one you are using!

e.g.

spceial

definded

toghether

thier

milion

extemly

impresive

casulties.

strangly

acccurte

equaels

Somthing

Samuel
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: 30 Jan 2004 08:49
Location: Europe

Post by Samuel » 26 Apr 2004 06:53

Darrin wrote:Try reading my second paragraph again. Then go look at table 56 and try to find the unrecorded cas losses he list there in table A p 91. If you can see it you must be using spceial glasses that us normal people don't have access to.


If you are trying to suggest that the unrecorded cas are included in the overall total of people who left the army. You might notice that the total is broken down to exact subgroup. All these are exactly definded, reported and added toghether to get the total. When I open my dictionary this certainly doesn't sound like the definiton of 'unrecorded' anything. Maybe you could tell us what dictionary you are using?
The unrecored casualties are grouped together with the MIA in table A p.91.

Darrin
Member
Posts: 831
Joined: 17 Apr 2002 10:44
Location: Canada

Post by Darrin » 26 Apr 2004 09:09

Samuel wrote:
Darrin wrote:Try reading my second paragraph again. Then go look at table 56 and try to find the unrecorded cas losses he list there in table A p 91. If you can see it you must be using spceial glasses that us normal people don't have access to.


If you are trying to suggest that the unrecorded cas are included in the overall total of people who left the army. You might notice that the total is broken down to exact subgroup. All these are exactly definded, reported and added toghether to get the total. When I open my dictionary this certainly doesn't sound like the definiton of 'unrecorded' anything. Maybe you could tell us what dictionary you are using?
The unrecored casualties are grouped together with the MIA in table A p.91.


No they aren't the mia numbers are just the same as table 56 plus the 500,000 reservist mentioned towards the bottom of table 56. By the way these are all RECORED cas. The actual mias numbers on p91 tA are 5.1 mil which is eaxctly accounted for by the two RECORDED cas I mentioned earlier. If it also contained all the UNRECORDED cas as you seem to fantasize it should be closeer to 6.2 million.

Darrin
Member
Posts: 831
Joined: 17 Apr 2002 10:44
Location: Canada

Post by Darrin » 27 Apr 2004 16:57

THE FOLLOWING SCANS ARE FROM JOHN ERICKSON'S FOWARD TO KRIVOSHEEV'S BOOK. What I call the second and third page although thier were different roman numerals at the bottom.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Darrin
Member
Posts: 831
Joined: 17 Apr 2002 10:44
Location: Canada

Post by Darrin » 27 Apr 2004 17:12

This rus major archivist was in charge of the majority of alphabetical card indexs and indiv reg of irrecoverable losses. He disbelieves his own countrys assertion that at most 8.7 million died. Even Dr John Erikson historian and rus expert uses the number 17.4 mil and references the earlier article card indexs.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Darrin
Member
Posts: 831
Joined: 17 Apr 2002 10:44
Location: Canada

Post by Darrin » 27 Apr 2004 18:32

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum ... 00051.html


The last few important words of a long article.


----------


We end up with a number for permanent losses of our Armed Forces in the Great Patriotic War of around 13,850,000 persons.


About the author

Sergey Aleksandrovich Il’enkov – Graduated from the Kalinnin Suvorov Military Academy, the Higher Military Academy, the Moscow State Historical-Archival Institute. Assistant chief for scientific work of the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. Co author of many scientific works on the history of the Great Patriotic War.

Voennno-Istoricheskiy Arkhiv
No. 7(22), 2001, pp. 73-80

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 27 Apr 2004 22:27

Darrin wrote:http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum ... 00051.html


The last few important words of a long article.


----------


We end up with a number for permanent losses of our Armed Forces in the Great Patriotic War of around 13,850,000 persons.


About the author

Sergey Aleksandrovich Il’enkov – Graduated from the Kalinnin Suvorov Military Academy, the Higher Military Academy, the Moscow State Historical-Archival Institute. Assistant chief for scientific work of the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. Co author of many scientific works on the history of the Great Patriotic War.

Voennno-Istoricheskiy Arkhiv
No. 7(22), 2001, pp. 73-80
Repeating oneslef again again does not add weight to you argument. Are going to answer how is "your" study manged to miss almost two millions of returned POWsan peopel repeatdely conscribed on the newly-libirated territories?

Michate
Member
Posts: 1429
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 10:50
Location: Germany

Post by Michate » 28 Apr 2004 09:02

Repeating oneslef again again does not add weight to you argument. Are going to answer how is "your" study manged to miss almost two millions of returned POWsan peopel repeatdely conscribed on the newly-libirated territories?
Sorry to come up with this again, but what does make you so sure that liberated surviving soldiers were missed in the study?

The mentioned article estimates a 1.2% error counting people that turned out to be alive, but does not give reasons for such an error. IMHO this error rate can be quite reasonably explained by the cumulation of normal counting errors, especially at the occasionally chaotic situations in 1941/1942. The accounting of liberated missing or POWs may be a different matter, the article is silent about that, except for a some somewhat fuzzy remarks:
Counts were also made of deserters, servicemen sentenced to correctional labor institutions, servicemen sentenced to death, servicemen removed from the count of permanent losses (i.e. turned out to be alive), servicemen suspected of collaborating with the Germans, and servicemen who were captured but survived.
and:
These charts do not include counts of deserters, those convicted or executed, etc.
Perhaps you do have additional information on that topic then I would be glad if you could share it.

Best regards,
Michael

Samuel
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: 30 Jan 2004 08:49
Location: Europe

Post by Samuel » 28 Apr 2004 15:38

Darrin wrote:No they aren't the mia numbers are just the same as table 56 plus the 500,000 reservist mentioned towards the bottom of table 56. By the way these are all RECORED cas. The actual mias numbers on p91 tA are 5.1 mil which is eaxctly accounted for by the two RECORDED cas I mentioned earlier. If it also contained all the UNRECORDED cas as you seem to fantasize it should be closeer to 6.2 million.
Obviously "normal" people like you can't read that book correctly.
At the bottom of page 84 it is written " 'Unrecored casualties' shown in section 3 of Table 56 are grouped together with 'missing in action' an are included with the casualty figures for thoses fronts and independdent armies which did not submit reports in the third and fourth quarters of 1941."
In section 3 of table 56 we can read two numbers 3,396.4 and 1,162.6. The first is the number (in thousands) of "missing in action, POWs (based reports from troops and figures from repatriation organisations)". The second is the number (in thousands) of "unrecorded casualties of the first months of the war". If you add those two numbers you get 4,559 (in thousands) MIA.
In case it is not clear for you the unrecored casualties are included in the 4,559 MIA (in thousands).
If to 4,559 you add 500 you get 5,059. This is exactly the number you find in table A page 91 for MIA, POWs and reservists captured after being conscripted but before being taken on strength.

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 29 Apr 2004 01:50

Michate wrote:
Repeating oneslef again again does not add weight to you argument. Are going to answer how is "your" study manged to miss almost two millions of returned POWsan peopel repeatdely conscribed on the newly-libirated territories?
Sorry to come up with this again, but what does make you so sure that liberated surviving soldiers were missed in the study?

The mentioned article estimates a 1.2% error counting people that turned out to be alive, but does not give reasons for such an error. IMHO this error rate can be quite reasonably explained by the cumulation of normal counting errors, especially at the occasionally chaotic situations in 1941/1942. The accounting of liberated missing or POWs may be a different matter, the article is silent about that, except for a some somewhat fuzzy remarks:
Counts were also made of deserters, servicemen sentenced to correctional labor institutions, servicemen sentenced to death, servicemen removed from the count of permanent losses (i.e. turned out to be alive), servicemen suspected of collaborating with the Germans, and servicemen who were captured but survived.
and:
These charts do not include counts of deserters, those convicted or executed, etc.
Perhaps you do have additional information on that topic then I would be glad if you could share it.

Best regards,
Michael
Sorry to come up with this again, but what does make you so sure that liberated surviving soldiers were missed in the study?

The mentioned article estimates a 1.2% error counting people that turned out to be alive, but does not give reasons for such an error. IMHO this error rate can be quite reasonably explained by the cumulation of normal counting errors, especially at the occasionally chaotic situations in 1941/1942. The accounting of liberated missing or POWs may be a different matter, the article is silent about that, except for a some somewhat fuzzy remarks:
The card basically had several check boxes for each men – among them KIA, MIA, POW. Officially very few people were recorded as POW. Most were recorded as MIAs. Now if the person who was recorded as MIA turned in fact to be POW, who later was liberated or a person who basically went home then his unit was defeated –as it happen with conscripts in Ukraine and Byelorussia who were assigned to territorial units and managed to escape the encirclement, the card should have been corrected. Now, number of POWs who returned from captivity –after the war was 1836000. Another 939,700 were found on liberated territories and repeatedly conscribed. By all accounts there should be far more than 116,513 corrected cards. The reason behind the difference could be that it was not the army that ran the filtration camps but SMERSH and consequently records simply did not get adjusted. Btw Krivosheev does use cards also and the number his team came up with 11444,100. So accidentally difference between the numbers used by article and Krivosheev numbers 2405900 which is pretty close to the number you’ll get if you add up number of returned POWs and the number of repeatedly conscribed (2775700)

P.S accidently form the link Darrin gave it seems that analogical German system was not all that functional either.

Darrin
Member
Posts: 831
Joined: 17 Apr 2002 10:44
Location: Canada

Post by Darrin » 29 Apr 2004 03:13

Samuel wrote:
Obviously "normal" people like you can't read that book correctly.
At the bottom of page 84 it is written " 'Unrecored casualties' shown in section 3 of Table 56 are grouped together with 'missing in action' an are included with the casualty figures for thoses fronts and independdent armies which did not submit reports in the third and fourth quarters of 1941."
In section 3 of table 56 we can read two numbers 3,396.4 and 1,162.6. The first is the number (in thousands) of "missing in action, POWs (based reports from troops and figures from repatriation organisations)". The second is the number (in thousands) of "unrecorded casualties of the first months of the war". If you add those two numbers you get 4,559 (in thousands) MIA.
In case it is not clear for you the unrecored casualties are included in the 4,559 MIA (in thousands).
If to 4,559 you add 500 you get 5,059. This is exactly the number you find in table A page 91 for MIA, POWs and reservists captured after being conscripted but before being taken on strength.


I was in error you are correct.

Darrin
Member
Posts: 831
Joined: 17 Apr 2002 10:44
Location: Canada

Post by Darrin » 29 Apr 2004 05:50

Krivosheev thinks the maximum soviet military death toll was 8.7 mil.

This is based primarly by adding togeather reports from various fronts the numbers who died etc...

-----

A russian major archivist in a much newer study says the number was 13.8 milllion.

This is based on individual card indexs entrily. He also is quoted in ericksons foward as disbeliving krivosheevs numbers. I've posted a link above to an article on this.

-----

An older card index study also refererced in ericksons foward metions the number of 17.4 million.

This study is also based entrily on indiv card indexs. Erickson providies a referces to this article which I provided from a scan page above.


------------


The diff from new card index and krivo death totals = 5.1 milllion

The diff from old card index and kiro death totals = 8.7 million


The idea that their might not be AN EXTREMLY LARGE problem with kiivosheevs offical maximum death total PRICELESS FANTASY.

Return to “The Soviet Union at War 1917-1945”