Talk:German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war

message: how did germans know who were jewish when they took Soviets prisoner?82.11.228.80 (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: During intake at POW camps, Germans checked for circumcision. However, they may have also separated Jews even earlies, as I've seen photographs of groups of Jewish POWs at POWs collection points. Germans may have selected those who 'appeared Jewish' or asked Jews to self-identify. The latter probably worked only at the early stages of the invasion, as the shootings of Jewish POWs and commissars became known to the Red Army soldiers. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Yellow Badge

message: The statement that most liberated soviet POW's were sent to Gulag camps is false. Out of 1 836 562 Soviet POW's that returned from captivity, 233 400 were sent to NKVD administered camps. Source: Russia and USSR, Military losses, Statistical study, under general supervision of professor general-colonel G.F.Krivosheev (http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_13_08.html). 12.7% of something hardly constitute MOST of something. Thus, I am changing "most" back to "some" and removing the reference that contradicts this highly reliable study. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 08:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not good enough. The reference is itself reliable. What you should do is include both references and souces, not try to obliterrate one you don't like and leave the passage unreferenced. Paul B (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I will have to disagree. The reference does not show how they came to such a conclusion, nor even gives any numbers. If we had an article like that here, people would want a source for such a claim. Considering that it contradicts archival research done by Krivosheev's crew, I think that it should not be given undue weight. Personally, I would prefer it removed completely, because I smell cold war era BS. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't speak Russian, so I had to read your source through translation software, but it seems like a tub-thumping patriotic site rather than an objective resource. Nevertheless I have included it along with the USHMM. Paul B (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because a text sounds tub-thumping patriotic, that doesn't necessarily make it incorrect. 2A0A:EF40:1242:3701:5174:A3ED:80AD:D2CC (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

text: It's written in Soviet-type language, even though it was published in first in 1993 (if not later). Also, what you wrote is not at all what I sited. There was nothing said or written about the majority of collaborators being unpunished. The point was, out of those that returned, most were NOT collaborators, and as such, they were not prosecuted. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I could have phrased it better, that's for sure. I wrote "a minority of known collaborators". I meant 'a minority of prisoners; those who were known to be collaborators' not 'a minority of those who were collaborators'. Nevertheless the fact remains that you can't simply obliterate what a reliable source says and insist that your alternative source must be true. Paul B (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I now see that you didn't delete it but moved it. Paul B (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what do you think, is it better now? Also, about Krivosheev. I probably misinformed you a bit with my first not so considerate changes; the research wasn't done by Krivosheev, it was carried out by a whole group of military historians, since the amount of work that had to be done was enormous. Krivosheev was the head of the research team, but referring to this work as done BY him is not correct. This is my mistake, yet I'm not too sure how to phrase it better. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Right. If you want to correct something in this or "Soviet historiography" article, please do.Biophys (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I may; I have stumbled upon this topic thanks to a discussion at Talk:Siege of Brest (1941) and the stimulating as usual comments of certain editor there :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  06:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Soviet reprisals against former POWs

message: Can anybody check what year is the linked research of G.F. Krivosheev from? If it is late 80s or more modern, it is much more reliable than if would be published earlier (per above).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at this link, allegedly to work of G.F. Krivosheev. This site is not a reliable source. As very common for unreliable sources, it does not provide any publication date, and it is not quite clear who is the author. I went to the main page of this site and found at the very top the following: "Россия, слышишь страшный зуд? Жидомасоны в Президенты прут." So, this site promotes the worldwide Jewish conspiracy theory and describes (in obscene expressions) Russian presidential candidate Andrei Vladimirovich Bogdanov as such conspirator... I doubt that Grigoriy Krivosheev is notable enough for WP.Biophys (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Biophys, it is always best to check before casting doubt, especially on the living person. This Google books search takes 10 seconds  and does not even require a subscription. --Irpen 06:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Biophys, would you doubt Kozma Prutkov if you had his work available on a some kind of supremacy site? With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The book originally was published in 1993, than it was expanded and corrected for the "second edition", which was published in Moskow by Olma-Press in 2001. The latter is quoted from the www.soldat.ru site. Personally, for whatever it's worth, I have checked some random numbers with both the paper and some other on-line versions and www.soldat.ru is, in my opinion, considerably apt in hosting the book. The book itself is not perfect of course. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A source

message: I think this section should be split off, the subject is notable and it is confusing to have to look for it (and find it in) "Extermination of Soviet prisoners of war by Nazi Germany".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  22:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; this could be only briefly mentioned here.Biophys (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting the section

message: Wrote USHMM website. But I listed the cases, and it seems more like "about 140,000 period" (including the SS camp Birkenau). Wht do you think about it? --HanzoHattori 12:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I fixed it. --HanzoHattori (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "140,000 up to 500,000 were executed in the concentration camps" 

message: Some Soviet POWs also died at the Ponary massacre place.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  01:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other site of massacres 

message: I reverted all of User:84.234.60.154's recent edits, including some sections that appeared to have useful references. The reason is that User:84.234.60.154 was deleting previously referenced material without discussion. For instance, User:84.234.60.154 changed the referenced death toll estimate of 2.8-3.5 million to an unreferenced estimate of 3.3-3.5 million. I invite User:84.234.60.154 to return his or her edits to the article but each one should be accompanied by a suitable reference. Binksternet (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be referenced right now, and the estimates are similar. I think the article is visibly improved after his/her edits.Biophys (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Large scale edits by User:84.234.60.154

message: Why is this comparison being made? The Soviets didn't commit genocide and try to exterminate their prisoners like the Germans did. From what I've read, including notes of German survivors, the Soviets did their best with what they had.
And so did the Germans,  when the Soviets retreated they scorched the earth and left no food or crops,  see  recently published Eastern Inferno.
 It looks like some sort of Nazi apologist POV push, trying to imply either that it wasn't "that bad", or the Soviets were "just as bad", neither of which is anything close to true. As it stands there's no rationale to keep this comparison. This article isn't about comparing numbers, it's about actions, the act of extermination and genocide. It's not right to compare unavoidable deaths to murders.LokiiT (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Soviets also just were not taking prisoners in the first weeks of the war. At all. The medals were for the certain number of the KILLED Germans. This changed only when they needed them to march them through Moscow. Another example: After the Soviets took one city in Bagration, they killed 6,000 wounded the Germans left behind. And so on. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It took until the Battle of Stalingrad for the Soviet government to issue a remarkably forward-thinking official stance on the treatment of POWs. Divisions at the front were told in no uncertain terms to treat German POWs carefully and properly, to feed them and not make them march too far. A number of aspects of POW care were covered in detail. The edict had a very limited positive effect; most Soviet soldiers just didn't give a shit about caring for Axis soldiers, and continued to starve them, deny them medical attention, expose them to the elements, force-march them too far and to shoot them when they felt like it. One group of 125,000 Italian POWs taken at Stalingrad was marched, frozen, shot and starved until only 12,000 were left. Binksternet (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I inserted two phrases for the sake of WP:NPOV and because that is an encyclopedic content. A reader probably would like to learn the other side of the story. Thus, a very brief info in this article is fine. If we had something like Japanese prisoners of war in the Soviet Union about German POWs, that info could be placed there. But we do not have German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union.Biophys (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a neutral point of view issue because the number of German POWs who died has nothing to do with the extermination of Soviet POWs. The insertion of that figure falls under the category of original research, unless you can provide an article on this very topic that makes that specific comparison. 
*"This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position....you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article"LokiiT (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

text: What OR are you talking about? That is your diff. You have deleted a text supported by two academic books and other reliable sources.Biophys (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just explained it to you. It's original research/synthesis, the source doesn't make any comparisons between German and Soviet deaths in POWs because the comparison is meaningless. It just looks like a Nazi apologist inserted it to say "hey, look how many Germans died in Soviet camps, they're just as bad!" but as I already explained, the comparison makes no sense. When you insert that figure and make the comparison, you're making an "unpublished analysis". Do you understand what I mean? If not, please read through WP:Original research more thoroughly. LokiiT (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was me who inserted this text for the sake of NPOV as explained above. Do you mean that I am "a Nazi apologist" as you said? Inserting a text about Gulag does not mean to be an apologist of anything. OR is something that is not in reliable sources. The inserted text is sourced. Anne Applebaum specifically compared Soviet and German extermination camps (the text about similar death rates), so this is not OR.Biophys (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I highly doubt the credibility of Anne Applebaum if that's the case, because there were no Soviet extermination camps. There were labor camps, and of course there were executions, food shortages and many tragic deaths, but there was no genocide taking place in Soviet camps like there was in German camps. Can you please cite the page that quote is on? But regardless, I have to stress my original point that the number of German POW deaths has nothing to do with  the number of Soviets murdered in German camps, which is why it's original research.LokiiT (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You just said: "there were no Soviet extermination camps" Did you ever read Alexander Solzhenitsyn?  How did he called them? "Istrebitel'no-trudovye". Translation: "extermination by labor". Sure, I can provide exact citation with page for Applebaum.Biophys (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Alexander Solzhenitsyn doesn't make up definitions of words and his opinion isn't authoritative. I could find you people who claim the Iraq war is a genocide, but that doesn't mean it is and that doesn't mean we should put that in wikipedia. LokiiT (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant. Word "extermination" was not included in text.Biophys (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not original research. It's data documented by a known researcher. The only discussion taking place here is whether this information should be incorporated into the article, and, if "yes", how it should be incorporated. Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can incorporate this information better, please do. I though briefly mentioning this somewhere was appropriate.Biophys (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: " I could find you people who claim the Iraq war is a genocide, but that doesn't mean it is" It doesn't? http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4555000.stm --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see how this is relevant, but your source (BBC article) tells: "A court in The Hague has ruled that the killing of thousands of Kurds in Iraq in the 1980s [by Saddam Hussein] was an act of genocide." . This is a sourced view.Biophys (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which means there the war in Iraq was a genocide. No need to "find people", it's in court rulings. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant the current war in Iraq. But either way, my point remains that comparing genocide to non-genocide just shouldn't be done and I still hold that it was someones attempt to draw non-existent parallels between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, much like the black book of propaganda attempts to do. I'm satisfied with the current version though, the numbers can stay as long as they're in context with history and not just a blind comparison of a series of digits serving to imply falsities. LokiiT (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Only in Wikipedia can an article about Nazi cruelty devolve into an argument about whether the Soviets were worse or not... :/ Come on, guys! Forget about the Soviets for a minute. We are discussing NAZIS here! 190.18.161.171 (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, the tactic of relativizing the crimes of one side by comparing them to alleged crimes of the other side and saying "look, they were just as bad!" is typical of: a- young kids complaining about their brothers, b- Nazi apologists and Holocaust deniers, c- the right-wing in Latin America and their "Theory of the Two Demons", i.e. the justification of murder and torture enforced by military dictatorships against the civilian population by saying "but the guerrillas also murdered people!" 190.194.223.134 (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparing Soviet POW deaths to German POW deaths

message: How about "Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs"? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is shorter and better.Biophys (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is worse since it hides the word extermination which it was extermination it explains it all it was extermination to exterminate Aheadnovel55 (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening title 

message: Do a German Wiki version. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the German-language editors 

message: The following segment has been recently inserted: According to the study by the Russian Academy of Sciences, out of the 5,917,000 repatriated Soviet POWs and civilians, 3,246,000 returned to civilian life, 1,645,000 were conscripted and 338,000 were found guilty (most of them were released by 1953); about half a million remained in Western countries.[43]. 
This is actually a collection of articles by different people ("sbornik"). What article has been cited (with pages please), and who was author of the article? This is not "According to the study by the Russian Academy of Sciences" if I understand correctly.Biophys (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this segment seems to be off topic. We are talking only about POWs here. Only ~1.5 millions of the repatriated people were POWs. So, the "total" statistics (POWs + civilians) is hardly relevant. The entire "Reprisals" sections could be a separate sub-article.Biophys (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read Russian, try to look for Zemskov's works. He did several archive studies, some of them dealt with the POW's fate (see, for example http://scepsis.ru/library/id_1234.html). This author is quite tustworthy, because, for instance, he published some of his results in high reputable Western journals (see, for instance,Getty, Rittersporn, Zemskov. Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years: A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence. The American Historical Review, Vol. 98, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 1017-1049, ref No 42 in this article). According to Zemskov's data majority of ex-POW's were re-drafted and only 15% of them were detained in NKVD camps (226,127 out of 1,539,475 total). If you think those data to be more relevant, please, feel free to replace. By the way, this number is quite reasonable, because considerable part of those 226,127 could really collaborate with Nazis (so called vlasovtsy, for instance))  --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But this does not answer my question. Can you please provide a proper reference for the currently cited segment? Also, we should probably place this material to Soviet POWs article that is now a disambig. page. Note that Getty is a "revisionist historian" who wrote ridiculous things about Stalin's purges. As about Zemskov, let me respectfully disagree. His studies are based on numbers that have been prepared by the KGB itself. These KGB data represent a deliberate falsification according to some researchers, while others still use these data, because they do not have anything better (Soviet military and secret services archives were never open, even with regard to old historical documents).Biophys (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Who was the author?

message: The image :File:19558.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:19558.jpg

message: I'm not one to sugarcoat atrocities committed by the Soviets or any of the allies, even for being biased in their favor, yet the reference to the Black Book of Communism in the last sentence of the summary, seems inappropriate.  It is contextually relevant true.  But it so deviates from given statistics, an order magnitude higher, that it doesn't seem likely that it's any more than a fabrication. 76.111.80.228 (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree on the summary. Overmans' data are definitely much more reliable. As regards to the the middle paragraph of Soviet reprisals against former POWs, it simply poorly worded. The major conclusion from these numbers should be that the majority of exPOWs were released. In other words, it just confirms the conclusions made in the preceding paragraph.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is according to sources cited in "Black book" (Maschke commission and others). You can not simply delete refs to a reliable secondary source.Biophys (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I placed all those estimates about German prisoners to footnote. This belongs to another article.Biophys (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a separate article about German POWs. Please contribute there. The brief mention about German POWs in this article (as it is right now) should be fine.Biophys (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Support.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Black Book of Communism 

message: A lot of the quotes do not make sense. Many are contradiictory or just plain confusing. I had started to copyedit them before I realised that somebody with more expertise than I was needed.
In the "Prisoner-of War" section, the article states: 'Due to the rapid advance and expected quick victory, the Germans did not want to ship these prisoners back to Germany', but I do know that Stalag XI-C (mentioned in "The Camps" section), the camp that later became Bergen-Belsen was/is in, er, Germany - its just north of Hannover. RASAM (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: Page  (in Russian) on a website about the history of the Russian and Soviet military claims that USSR did sign 1929 Geneve Convention, in 1931. They point to an archived Soviet documents and say that the copy of the document is also present in the Library of Congress. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? Thousands of Soviet commisars were summarily shot by the Wehrmacht under the Commissar Order. Look up the Wikipedia article on the topic. The claim that the order wasn't enforced was pushed by German generals after the war and, like many of their claims, was BS meant to save their own skins. 2A0A:EF40:1242:3701:5174:A3ED:80AD:D2CC (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim that USSR did sign Geneve convention in 1931 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
* Support seems to be a more apt title Bandy boy (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Please participate in the review here: Talk:French prisoners of war in World War II/GA1. Thank you! walk victor falk talk 05:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[French prisoners of war in World War II]] GA-nominated 

message: I see a few issues with the paragraph that's included in this section: 
(1) The numbers quoted do not support 30% of German POW casualty rate in Soviet captivity. Even if we take the high number 557K attributed to Anne Applebaum, and the low number of POW 2.4M, then the mortality rate is 23% *  
(2) The paragraph includes a quote from Anne Applebaum, but does not include the estimate from Richard Overy, provided in the linked article: "British historian Richard Overy estimated that 356,000 out of 2,880,000 million German prisoners of war died in Soviet labor camps." This is mortality rate of 12%. Why include the high estimate, but not others? * 
(3) From Russian language sources, I also see 12%: http://militera.lib.ru/research/pyhalov_i/12.html# The numbers are listed as follows: out of 3.576M German POWs, 442K died in captivity (12,4%); 137.8K POW casualties out of 800K Hungarian, Italian, Rumanian, Slovakian and Finnish POWs (17%); 62K casualties out of 640K Japanese POWs (9%). * 
(4) 30% is not listed or sourced in the linked article. * 
(5) The quote "Similar death rates prevailed among Soviet soldiers in German captivity: the Nazi–Soviet war was truly a fight to the death" is Anne Applebaum's opinion and seem to equate behavior of Soviet and German military towards POWs. * 
(6) This quote is factually incorrect "Out of the nearly 110,000 German prisoners taken at Stalingrad, only about 6,000 survived the captivity.[citation needed]" The Wikipedia quotes the number as 91K (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad#Soviet_victory) and that number included Axis forces as well. So there could not have been 110K "German prisoners" * 
(7) The linked article on German POWs does not have a section on "Contemporary mistreatment of Soviet POWs" (which as it should be). 
I recommend the same treatment as offered in the linked article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_prisoners_of_war_in_the_Soviet_Union
So the section would look like:
See also[edit] * German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union * [link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_prisoners_of_war_in_the_Soviet_Union]
That would be neutral POV. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a week with no comments or objections, so I removed the section and linked to German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union under "See also" --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with section "Contemporary Soviet mistreatment of German prisoners of war" 

message: I propose that the title of this article be changed to "Soviet prisoners of war held by Germany". That would be more in line with Wikipedia neutrality rules and allow a more useful presentation of the context. Zerotalk 04:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  the title of this article 

message: See full text of the document: http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/English58.pdf 
Current Wikipedia text: The Commissar Order (German: Kommissarbefehl) was an order issued by Adolf Hitler on 6 June 1941 before Operation Barbarossa.
I would like to make the change here and on the Commissar Order page, unless there are objections. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the change. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commissar order issued by OKW, not Hitler 

message: Should not be the title be more impartial, such as Soviet prisoners of war during World War II? The article seems to be well sourced, though the title seems to attempt to a point of view. At least comparing with the other article, German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union, whose title seems more impartial.João Pimentel Ferreira 21:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would leave it as is. There's a big discussion above when the article was renamed from "Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs" and "Mistreatment" was the consensus. I believe that this is indeed a special case (vs German POWs, for example), as, at more than 3,000,000 victims, this was the single worst crime against humanity/war crime of WWII after the Final Solution. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

text: It's widely accepted that Nazi Germany attempted an extermination campaign against Slavs, and that the number of deaths of Russian and Slav POWs was staggering. It's not controversial to link the two. It's as accepted as the fact the Nazis wanted to exterminate all Jewish people. So there is no need at all to adopt an "impartial" tone to the title, when it's stating what is widely acknowledged to be a fact. 190.194.223.134 (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I don't understand why an editor reinstated a startling and astonishingly precise claim about Stalag IV-H: "Of the 510,677 inmates in the camp before the typhoid fever epidemic in December 1941, only 3,729 were still alive when it ended in April 1942". Only a dead link is offered as a source.  The camp was designed to hold 30,000 inmates. I cannot find a reliable source suggesting anything like half a million Soviet soldiers were crammed in prior to the epidemic, though there are sources suggesting there were perhaps 7,000, or perhaps 11,000 prior to the epidemic. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Stalag IV-H

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on German mistreatment of Soviet prisoners of war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080313232856/http://www.hero.ac.uk:80/uk/research/archives/2007/remembering_bergen_belsen_Dec.cfm to http://www.hero.ac.uk/uk/research/archives/2007/remembering_bergen_belsen_Dec.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071123103808/http://www.cympm.com:80/majdanek.html to http://www.cympm.com/majdanek.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Unarchived deadlinks and poor formatting. --94.246.144.29 (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone please fix the sources 

message: I wonder if there would be objections with replacing the image "A Soviet POW with a loaf of bread. June 1941". The image seems too closely aligned with Nazi propaganda of "bestial", "Asiatic hordes". I'd like to use a more neutral image. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on German mistreatment of Soviet prisoners of war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080103124742/http://www.stsg.de:80/main/zeithain/geschichte/russenlager/index_en.php to http://www.stsg.de/main/zeithain/geschichte/russenlager/index_en.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080106201847/http://www.stsg.de:80/main/zeithain/geschichte/sowjpow/index_en.php to http://www.stsg.de/main/zeithain/geschichte/sowjpow/index_en.php
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/media_cm.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005454&MediaId=133
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on German mistreatment of Soviet prisoners of war. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/media_cm.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005454&MediaId=133
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on German mistreatment of Soviet prisoners of war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080330210330/http://www.historynet.com:80/wars_conflicts/world_war_2/3037296.html? to http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/world_war_2/3037296.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080330210330/http://www.historynet.com:80/wars_conflicts/world_war_2/3037296.html? to http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/world_war_2/3037296.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on German mistreatment of Soviet prisoners of war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140206191508/http://www2.webster.edu/~woolflm/nazidocsandothers.html to http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/nazidocsandothers.html
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/692LyEIYq?url=http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/wcc/zyklonb.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/zyklonb.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on German mistreatment of Soviet prisoners of war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070812071607/http://www.wdr.de/online/news/ueberfall_sowjetunion/index.phtml to http://www.wdr.de/online/news/ueberfall_sowjetunion/index.phtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071126122757/http://www.auschwitz-muzeum.oswiecim.pl/new/index.php?language=EN&tryb=stale&id=378 to http://www.auschwitz-muzeum.oswiecim.pl/new/index.php?language=EN&tryb=stale&id=378
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080220032842/http://www.auschwitz-muzeum.oswiecim.pl/html/eng/historia_KL/kgl_radzieckich_jen_woj_ok.html to http://www.auschwitz-muzeum.oswiecim.pl/html/eng/historia_KL/kgl_radzieckich_jen_woj_ok.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130103073238/http://www.holocaust-denial-on-trial.com/trial/defense/pl2/IIIB?view=print to http://www.holocaust-denial-on-trial.com/trial/defense/pl2/IIIB?view=print
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071228163139/http://uncpress.unc.edu/chapters/langbein_people.html to http://uncpress.unc.edu/chapters/langbein_people.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/zyklonb.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208200157/http://collections.yadvashem.org/photosarchive/en-us/search.html to http://collections.yadvashem.org/photosarchive/en-us/search.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Not 500 - but 4.000, states article: Over 4,000 Soviet prisoners of war were murdered by the Dachau commandant's guard at the SS shooting range located at Hebertshausen two kilometers from the main camp in the years 1941/1943 --129.187.244.19 (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated it now it is correct.Driverofknowledge (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dachau concentration camp; numbers murdered there 

message: The current name of the article is as follows: German mistreatment of Soviet prisoners of war. As I am not a native speaker of English, I looked up the word mistreatment: "the act of treating a person or animal badly, cruelly, or unfairly", from Cambridge dictionary. So it goes that mistreatment is not nice. But is mistreatment about killing half of the persons or animals? Seems very strange to me.
This is what the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has to say about how Wehrmacht treated soviet prisoners of war:
"In addition to its complicity in the Holocaust, the German army bears the major responsibility for the mass death of captured Soviet prisoners of war (POWs). Due to its initial military success, the German army captured millions of Soviet soldiers. In only eight months, 2 million Soviet POWs had died in German custody; this is eight times the number of American combat casualties for the entire war. More Soviet POWs died each day in the summer and fall of 1941 than British and American POWs died during the entire war.
These deaths were not the result of poor planning and insufficient resources. They resulted from intentional policy, decided upon before the invasion. These POWs were given no shelter from the heat or cold, insufficient food, and little medical care. In all, 3.3 million Soviet soldiers are estimated to have died.", from "The Germany Military and the Holocaust"
Is this what we call mistreatment? Again, I am Norwegian, not fluent in English, but in Norwegian we would call this krigsforbrytelser (war crimes) as a minimum. In viewing the name of this article, one should also have in mind the article myth of the clean Wehrmacht. As we know, the Wehrmacht used to have a reputation as decent warriors. That was and is a lie. Many of them were war criminals, willing supporters and executioners for a genocidal regime. This name has to change, literally for the worse, as is the truth. After all we try to write an encyclopedia, we do not engage in glossing over intentional murder of millions of people, people that in any ordinary state would have been protected and cared for. Ulflarsen (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , What alternate name do you propose? The problem with "murder" or "killing" is that all were mistreated, not all were murdered. (t · c) buidhe 22:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Either German war crimes against Soviet prisoners of war, or, if that is not possible, I guess the better solution is just to remove mistreatment and name the article as Soviet prisoners of war (World War II). As the Soviet Union mostly fought against Germany it seems  to me that it is a more fitting description, although we would leave out some thousand soviet war prisoners in Finland and areas occupied by Imperial Japan. Ulflarsen (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue with "war crimes" is that this term does not seem to be used frequently in sources perhaps due to the legal vacuum that existed as Soviet Union did not ratify the Geneva Conventions. I agree that mistreatment isn't ideal either, since it comes off as euphemistic. (t · c) buidhe 23:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a common misunderstanding. The Third Geneva convention makes no distinction between POWs, so all POWs must be treated equally, and it does not matter whether their country is a party of the Convention or not. The only reservation was made regarding the transfer of POWs (cannot be transferred to a country that is not a party).--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

text:  In this video by the historian Waitman Beorn - "Killing the ‘Clean’ Wehrmacht: The Reality of the German Army and the Holocaust", he discuss what he calls the genocide of soviets POVs at 21:38. Again, war is war, resources are scare, so even when there is no battles, people suffer, and die. But over 50%? Maybe it also could be called Genocide against Soviet prisoners of war, but in no way mistreatment. Ulflarsen (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that some consider it a genocide, however, as far as I can tell, that is not the majority view (WP:POVTITLE comes into play), and it's used commonly in published sources even less than "war crimes". (If I'm wrong about the Geneva Convention, I withdraw any objection to that title). (t · c) buidhe 00:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

text:  I agree that "mistreatment" is too euphemistic. Is "persecution" better? Also, "war crime" is a technical term that I think we should avoid except in attributed opinion. How about "German crimes against Soviet prisoners of war"? Zerotalk 05:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  To Zero: Maybe Soviet prisoners of war (World War II) is the most fitting. For me "persecution" does not seem to cover it either, with a short and plain title, the content of the article says the rest. Ulflarsen (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't complain about that. Zerotalk 03:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Just came across this article and discussion. I think that it should be renamed German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war. "Mistreatment" sounds too... gentle for what happened. "War crimes" or "genocide", while not inaccurate IMO, run into POV issues. Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 00:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with BladeJogger2049, German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war better describes the article.--Mhorg (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the above although "war crimes" would be ok. "Mistreatment" is WP:WEASEL on steroids. Volunteer Marek  18:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

text:  I do agree as well, a change that better relates the horror of what happened. Ulflarsen (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of name 

message: * "Prisoners of war from other countries faced considerably less severe treatment." This needs to be clarified and supported in the text -- it is not. If the clause is trying to say that Soviet POWs fared worse than American POWs held by Nazi Germany, for example, it doesn't read as such.
*  "Soviet prisoners of war were subjected to forced labor under conditions worse than civilian forced laborers or prisoners of war from other countries." This is repetitive based on the sentence abov.?
* "More than 100,000 were transferred to Nazi concentration camps, where they were treated worse than other prisoners." Nothing in the article supports this, and I'm sure the Jewish prisoners in these concentration camps would be surprised to read they were treated better than Soviet POWs. Longhornsg (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with the lede 

message: *To answer your question above, I would say there appears to be a rough academic consensus, given that all high-quality recent sources quote either that number or lower figures. Furthermore, we have finished the GAN nomination—you can see below or here. After almost a month, there is not any other editors supporting your changes, so I suggest either we move forward with the version of the article which has been approved at GAN or seek additional input at WT:FAC, since I hope to get the article to FA status eventually. (t · c) buidhe 04:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @K.e.coffman The dispute is over whether 3.3 million is the absolute upper limit or not, as the Peter Calvocoressi source puts it at 3.5 million, and the numerous Russian sources above by multiple Russian scholars, including historians Boris Sokolov and Viktor Zemskov put it near or over 4 million. Also included is a convention of Russian scholars who stated that there is no academic consensus for the total number. Reaper1945 (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

text: PS -- what page(s) in Porter 2009 are being cited? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @K.e.coffman Page 360 for Porter I believe. Would you also mind seeing if this source "" is credible? It's a book by Belarusian and Russian scholars at an international scientific and practical conference titled “Soviet and German prisoners of war during the Second World War: main directions of research,” which was held in Minsk on December 12, 2003. Some scholars in there claim over 4 million, and it states that no consensus has been found. Though there may have been a more recent conference. Reaper1945 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The page range for the Porter 2009 source is 839–859... there is no page 360. (t · c) buidhe 03:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Yes, the linked book looks like a credible sources. However, it does not seem to be entirely helpful in this dispute. The first page of the opening chapter, "Russian Historians on the Fate of the Soviet POWs in Nazi Germany", provides the numbers already used in the article: 5.7 mln POWs & 3.3 mln victims. None of the remaining chapters seem to have the detail and specificity of Zemkov's 2013 article "On the question of the total number of Soviet prisoners of war and the scale of their mortality (1941-1945)." --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input, whatever is best works now. But a mention of Zemkov's article would work as you mentioned. Reaper1945 (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Must have looked at a different Porter source then. Reaper1945 (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuation

message: Hello!,
After reading the DYK of today, linked to this article, a doubt came to my mind. 
The sentence in the article referred to in the DYK is:
"By this time, more Soviet prisoners of war had died than any other group targeted by the Nazis; only the European Jews would surpass this figure."
However, the definition of "targeted group" is unclear. For example, one could say that the group of "Soviet POWs" was a targeted group, but also the group of "Soviet people". Even if civilian and military deaths are typically classified separately, the "targeted group" definition does not need to follow this distinction.
To see this more clear, imagine that a member of the targeted group of "European Jews" belonged to the military, became a POW and was executed because was recognised as "European Jew". Following the methodology of the article, he would be targeted as "European Jew POW", but not as "European Jew".
Best! 151.29.146.46 (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: In the sources cited, the targeted group isn't necessarily divided on national lines. For example, some Soviet civilians were killed via massacres related to anti-partisan warfare, others in deliberate starvation policies (i.e. siege of Leningrad), and more from euthanasia policies. Since these three groups were all killed for different reasons, they would be counted separately according to the methodology of the cited source. (t · c) buidhe 13:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "targeted group"