Berndd11222

Click here to leave Berndd11222 a new message.

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Berndd11222, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips:

• Take a look at the Simplified Ruleset.
• Read the Tutorial, How to edit a page and the Manual of Style.
• Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
• Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
• Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
• Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
• Use the Show preview button
• Provide an Edit summary
• Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
• Take a look at Consensus of standards
• Create a User page
• Be bold
• Ignore all rules

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Alf 16:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC).

WW2 Casualties

Hello Berndd11222, and thanks for your message!

You asked me for a review of your points on the discussion page for WW2 casualties. This is sadly not my area of expertise, but I have however posted a message called "New casualties numbers?" on the discussion page, where I give my recommendations. Good luck!

Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 07:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

More WW2 Casualties

Hi! I see you have posted well documented casualties numbers on Talk:World War II casualties for a long time. Thanks for that! You seem to have a good grasp of the topic, and I want to encourage you to make updates to the article as well. Just Be bold and dive right in and edit! And if someone changes the numbers without explaining why, just revert them. It's an important article, and we shouldn't let unsourced and unexplained changes slip in. Many numbers are of course uncertain, but we need to at least be consistent in what to include as war casualties (i.e. not natural deaths), and as long as we cite sources (like you do) we should be safe. If you have any questions about this or need help in editing, just ask me. Thanks again. Shanes 12:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. We shouldn't have copyrighted material anywhere on wikipedia. I don't have the book you're referring to, but if it's an obvious copy and paste from that book, we should remove it or rewrite it. Though, I'm not sure how serious it is to copy factual numbers from a source. I mean, if Italy lost 5,272 planes in the war, we can't change that or leave it out just because the number is in a book ;-). But we should of course cite the source. I'll put it in.

Regarding learning how to edit, the best way is really to just dive in. Start editing and learn by doing. Editing tables can be a bit tricky sometimes, but if you make mistakes it's easy for others to fix or in worst case just to revert it. Shanes 19:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

No, nobody took it down... Did you have a problem accessing it? Anyway, I can access it fine now, so it's still there. At the moment nobody has edited it since I added the Ellis ref you mentioned yesterday. Btw, "the folks at wikipedia" are you, me and everybody else editing pages here! Shanes 18:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Your updates to World War II casualties

Hi! Just a heads up to your updates to World War II casualties! Based on your extensive documentations and comments on talk I'm sure they're good. But you might want to fill in the Edit summary field when you make an edit and put in a comment there along the lines of "See talk", or some such comment so that other's realise you're not just making the numbers up ;-). I know you aren't, but other people with the article in their watch-list or people just monitoring recently changed articles could get suspicious when they see major changes made without an edit summary. And it's also considered good style to make them. But, anyway, thanks again for diving in and fixing up the page! Shanes 01:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Footnotes

Ok, no problem. I can fix that last glitch with the layout on Yugoslavia and the total numbers. If you aren't fixing them as we speak, that is. But I'll stay away from editing the page for a while in case you want to make further chages. It's so anoying to get edit-conflicts when editing a page like that, so it's better to let one person edit at a time ;-). Thanks again. Shanes 01:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Great! Looks good. Though there seems to be a typo in the numbers on China. The military and civilian deaths don't add up to 19,600,000. Should the total there read 19,100,000? Shanes 03:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The Polish footnote

Just a quick question about the Polish footnote. It says:

"http://www.projectinposterum.org/ Go to section entitled- European War Casualties."

But I can't find any section entitled "European War Casualties" on that page. Am I just missing something? Shanes 02:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I found it. It was on a page back there. I changed the URL to point directly to that page so it's easyer to find. Shanes 02:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

WW2 casualties

I think some more narrative prose is a good idea. The main tables should still be there for easy lookup, but the topic is complex, often controversial, and different sources have different numbers. And all this could/should be elaborated on and explained in the article, yes. Many people will come to the page with numbers on their "own" country that they have learned or read, and we should have some text explaining more thorowly what the numbers we list include. And that's probably best done outside tables and in addition to just simple footnotes.

Maybe we could also have separate casualty sections for the different (major) countries, with text and tables where there could be made room for lower and upper bounds on numbers and space for citing different sources and their numbers. Not so much that I expect you to find and look up every different estimate, but there are many people editing and there could be a value in having room for those comming here later with different sources to add to the information. I don't know.

But I really like your work so far. It was about time that we got some well-sourced numbers in this article. Well done! Shanes 09:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, maybe separate sections for each country. A bit like how you listed the data on the article's talk-page. Giving room to list differing numbers and some text explaining sources, differences and how and to what degree they are uncertain. Shanes 11:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The link

You had just mis-typed the last "]" as a ")". Fixed and reinserted now. I labeled link as "R J Rummel's Statistics of Democide", edit and adjust as you see it fit. Shanes 15:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Losses

Sorry for late answer, been away. Regarding your note on my talk-page, I haven't argued against your numbers. As long as you cite sources for them, I'm happy ;-). And if anyone makes changes to the numbers without citing a source, you can safely revert them with a comment in the edit summary asking for a source. I'll try to keep an eye out for undocumented changes as well.

But maybe it would be better if we continued discussions over this article on Talk:World War II casualties so it's more available to others who maybe want to join in the discussion. But if you just need help with something or have a question, please continue to ask me directly as you've done. Keep up the good work. You really seem to sit on alot of information on this topic, and it's great that you want to share it with the rest of us. Shanes 08:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I reposted your comment on the Soviet losses there. Hope it was ok. Maybe more people have comments/sugestions. Shanes 08:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Excel file

If it's a file you made and there are no copyright issues with it, maybe you can upload it to wikipedia? It works just as when uploading images. Then we can link to the file from the article. If this is not to your liking, let me know, and I'll give you my e-mail so you can mail it to me instead and I'll have a look at it. And good luck with the September financial statement, you hard working American ;-). Shanes 12:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Notes and references

Yes, splitting the notes and references sounds like a good idea. Then you don't have to list a ref more than ones, and you can just refer to that ref-listing wherever you need to above in the article and notes, see example here. I think you can use Cyrillic letters to specify a ref, but you should write it with western letters, too. Maybe put the cyrillic in brackets ( ). Shanes 07:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Had a peek now, and it's looking good I must say. Seems like you're really getting the hang of editing wikipedia now. Large tables with intervined footnotes and references is about as complex as editing here gets. So, you're on your way to become a wikipedia editing-expert now ;-). Shanes 06:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Asian data WW2 Casualties

There are various projects and groups of people here organized by contry. Regarding Japanese, the Wikipedia:Japan-related topics notice board should be a good place to get in touch with people speeking Japanese. And you can find links to other notice boards for other countries/languages on Wikipedia:Regional notice boards. I see there's Korean and Chinese there, and some others. Don't know how active all of those boards are, so maybe you'll have to wait a day or two for people to notice or reply, and maybe there aren't that many able to respond to your requests, but it's worth a try! Shanes 15:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Protection of userpages

No, a regular user can't protect any wikipedia-page from editing. Not even his own userpage. Administrators (I am one) can protect pages, and do so now and then if a page is really heavily vandalised, but are encouraged to not keep pages protected for long. I see your page hasn't been vandalised yet, and I doubt you'll have that as much of a problem anytime soon, but if you for any reason at any time want to have it locked from editing, I can do it for you. But then you'll not be able to edit it yourself, so it's not something I'd recomend or think you want. Shanes 14:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Netherlands East Indies in WW2

Hi Barney. As far as Wikipedia goes, I have done a lot of work on ABDACOM, and others have covered the sea battles of 1941-42 fairly well, although there is room for improvement. We have almost nothing on the land battles of 1941-42 in the NEI. I lack the time to go to libraries and do real research of the literature at the moment. The only significant source on the web for the 1941-42 period is L.Klemen's website http://www.geocities.com/dutcheastindies/

As for web resources 1942-45, the civilian situation is not well-covered, although there is a lot on the Allied POWs and the Borneo campaign of 1945. I did find this Library of Congress article: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query2/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+id0029) This page from the International Institute for Social History: http://www.iisg.nl/w3vlindonesia/ This private page: http://members.tripod.com/~leavis/WWII.htm And this book: Bibliography on Japanese occupation of Indonesia/Indoneshia Nihon senryoki bunken mokuroku (by) Takahashi Muneo, et.al. Tokyo, Ryukei Shosa, 1996. 386p., 27cm. ISBN 4844784544. Grant65 (Talk) 00:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, User:Dtasripin also has a strong interest in these matters. Grant65 (Talk) 02:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Sandbox

There's really nothing wrong in making multiple incremental updates. Sometimes it's even encouraged, if the updates are of different kinds and need their separate edit summary. But, yeah, sometimes it's better to try out the edits in a sandbox. And a tips regarding that: The wikipedia:sandbox is often crowded with lots of people doing experiments and deleting what's in there, so many people chose to use their own sandbox. They just create a page as a sub-page to their userpage, like e.g. User:Berndd11222/My Sandbox and do their own edits undisturbed there. It might be a smart place for you to do tests and experiments with tables, data or whatever you're working on at any time. Shanes 08:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

MY SANDBOX

The actual population transfer included about 7 million from former eastern Germany, 1.5 million from Poland in the borders of 1938 (total of 5.075 million from new borders), 2.5 million from Czechoslovakia, around 2 million from the Soviet Union, 240,000 from Hungary, 300,000 from Romania, and another 1 million from other Eastern European regions.

Heh, I think you misunderstood my note about a personal sandbox. You shouldn't use yopur talk-page as a sandbox ;-). Just click that red link above, and start editing there instead. Shanes 11:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

OK THANKS--Berndd11222 13:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Copyright

I'm afraid I'm not an expert in copyright issues, but in general copying contents of a book or journal is not permitted. But there are exceptions. If it's just a short quote, it's ok when you give proper credit. And also the copyright laws are different from country to country. I definitely don't know much about Russian law, but reading Wikipedia:Copyrights#Russia:_copyright_exemptions there seems to be an opening in that "Reports about events and facts, of informative characte" are not subject to opyrights. If you think the source in question falls under this, then I guess copying stated facts from the source will be fine.

But in general, just copying 3 pages from a book and inserting it in an article is not recomended, simply because it makes for a bad encyclopedia article to contain such an extensive quote. But maybe you just meant to copy it to a talk-page or a page outside the article to refer to when debating facts and numbers?

I'm sorry that I can't give you a clear yes or no. I think I'll just ask you to use your own judgement and common sense here. Does the source contain a copyright-notice? Do you think the owner/publisher of the work will object if he sees part of it republished here? My own stand on issues like this is to stay away from grey areas, but I'll let you be the judge on this here. Worst come we can remove it if it turns out to be a copyright infridgement. But if you have a suspicion of it being under copyright, then don't copy it. But rewriting a translation in your own words, is fine. Shanes 21:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

They are two links

One to Spiegel the other to Gazeta Wyborcza. --Molobo 19:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The link has been corrected to free one. --Molobo 20:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No not from Gdansk

I am from Upper Silesia.--Molobo 14:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: WW 2 casualties table cleanup

No probs man, I hope it was to your satisfaction. After all, I have to contribute with something when so MUCH work has been put into that page. I am truly amazed! And considering your comment that "I need to read those rules on formatting", I have to say the following: tables are f*cking b*tches! But if you want to know more about various stuff, here are some useful links I have copied from my own user page (maybe you know them already, but nevertheless here they are):

• Wikipedia help forum - The "Village Pump" - here you can get (almost) immediate help from fellow wikipedians
• Tables help
• Basic Editing help
• More editing help
• Images & other
• How to write a great article
• Help pages
• Manual of Style
• Wikipedia IRC channels
• Tutorial

Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 11:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

How to revert a page

Hi Berndd! Since you seem to be experiencing vandalism, here is a page which explains how to revert to a previous version. Maybe you know it, but here it is nevertheless:

Wikipedia:Revert

Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 15:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:Page Expulsion Germans

I believe that only sources, sources and more sources can stop the revert war plaguing such discussions. Besides, I was amazed that almost none of the related articles have any sources. This situation creates a fertile ground for POV pushers. In other news, you may be interested in this nomination: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt. I think Halibutt was always one of the more moderate and reasonable voices in the related discussions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Bernd,

I'm not very long a wikipedian, but I was shocked how much "opinion" is included on such sites, like the expulstion of German after WWII - it is not really a encyclopaedia, which should be impartial...

Citius Altius Fortius 10:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Howdy

After I read your User page last week, I decided to make an article for you. Enjoy! Olessi 06:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I haven't been to Gettysburg yet, actually. I've never found myself in that neck of the woods, although several of my friends have recommended it to me. Thanks for adding that information about Christburg! Olessi 18:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't think it would be a big deal here. It's usually quicker for me to just type Christburg than it is for me to copy and paste "Dzierzgoń", since I don't have the Alt-code for ń memorized yet. Olessi 19:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Based on the published German history of the town and my trip there in 2002 I plan to expand the page to include more detail on its past and the folks that live there now ( mostly ethnic Ukrainians) only 5 Germans are left. My great grandparents who were " Polski-Niemietski" bilinguals left there in 1886. My moms great grandfather fought at Gettysburg in 1863 with the 107th OVI.

Turkey

Thanks for the info, though I am not sure why you posted it to my page. As a note, however, Rummel tends to be a bit overenthusiastic about democide numbers, his estimates for things like the Spanish Inquisition are very high. I would suggest Matthew White instead, he compiles a full set of statistics from many sources, on the Armenian Genocide, see here. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I have enough fights on the various Holocaust-related pages, so I am not likely to get involved in the Armenian Genocide pages, but thank you for the thoughts. On the Holocaust page, I just reverted the existing language on the Armenian Genocide, the "persecutions" phrasing was not mine. I also do not think that you will be able to refocus the Holocaust pages solely on the war against the Jews. The US Holocaust Museum, among others, considers that the Holocaust was aimed at Roma, gays, etc., and there are large Polish and other contingents on Wikipedia that would be upset to see the more exclusive definition. However, you can certianly bring it up on the talk page. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi! You don't happen to have...

Hi Barney! I know you have put a LOT of work into the WW2 casualties page, and I remember your initial concern was that the data did not add up; therefore my question to you is: you don't happen to have an excel-sheet with the data you have collected? I know I could copy the data from the article, but sometimes I am a bit too lazy. Why I ask is not because I am trying to snatch any of your work - I just have some vague ideas on making some visual representions, which might be suitable for wikipedia. You can either reply on my talk page or send me a personal email.

My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 09:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

New piecharts added

Hi Barney!

I have replaced the two piecharts on the WW2 casualties page, based on your new values (this was not one of the ideas I was talking about though - it just happened :) ). Now the piecharts also show the percentage in numbers (better in my opinion). Feel free to comment them on my talk page (maybe you hate the colors, but Excel did not give me many options - colors loosely based on flag colors). In the wikimedia images (which are released as full public domain) I included your name for credit, if you don't mind. If you do mind, say so, or even go in an edit the description if you like.

My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 06:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Another piechart

Ok, finally, one of my ideas has been realised - a piechart with military & civilian percentages and by alliances. Regards, Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 07:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

WW1 Casualties

Hi Barney! I noticed that you have noticed that changes have been made to the article World War I casualties. I am the responsible! :) As you see the page is inspired by the corresponding WW2 page... I noticed your comments on the talk page, good. I just wanted to give you a personal note on the issues:

1. Duplication? - British Empire includes UK (as described in the foot note), but UK is also listed separately. They are however not duplicated into the total numbers.
2. Math error. - I do not understand what you mean (maybe you mean UK/British Empire, but see point 1)
3. Sources (civilian) - no source has been listed

I have personally not done any research (and I probably won't), and, generally, I have not made any major change to the numbers, I have just made some double-checking and typos fixes (there were some obvious errors). The values already existed in the article, and I do not know where they came from - I have just put them in tables. It seems the numbers were largely taken from these two sources:

• WWI casualties - Casualties of World War I from "Trenches on the Web"
• WWI casualties - Casualties of World War I from about.com

I have also added a couple of references that were listed on the WW1 casualties talk page. I know you are heavy into the WW2 casualties, but if you feel like contributing to WW1 casualties, you are warmly welcome. My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 09:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

WW 2 Order of Battle and Weapons Production

This is a very good idea! And quite interesting, as it could illuminate the war efforts & successes in new ways. A "balance sheet" could very well find it's place on the casualties page, but I think the article which would benefit the most from your work is this one:

• Military production during World War II

The data there is currently unsourced(!) and unorganized (only one table). If I were you I would adopt this article and start there, and later update the casualty page with a balance sheet. Now as I think about, the Military production during World War II probably would benefit from including GDP (gross domestic product), as this also would be enlightening. I have the basic values (with source) in a document, and I will add it to the Military production during World War II. If the page becomes more general, maybe it should be renamed to "Production during World War II". But we'll see about that later.

I sense however an upcoming problem with the display of data - too many dimensions: country, year, production, losses. But it can be solved by dividing the page into sections (maybe country as the top-order?). In any way, the article probably also would benefit from a summary table containing sums of the Axis & Allies groups. Later, it would be nice with a chart displaying various values over time 1939-1945.

Anyway, I like the idea, and will contribute if I can be useful. I will start by taking a look at the Military production during World War II. If we don't hear from eachother before, I wish you a Merry Christmas! My regards, Dennis Nilsson. --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 00:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hi again! Sorry for being repetitive, but if I were you I'd probably still start by adopting the article Military production during World War II. The choice is yours of course, but I think it's a good idea to do this because (a) as you said, the article is in need of attention (b) it would eliminate the risk of conflicting data in different articles (c) since people know it exists, the chance would be greater they contribute to it and (d) getting over that initial mental threshold of starting. If contributions to the article changes the nature and scope of it, we can always rename it to something more appropriate, and there will be no problem with linking from other articles, as this will be solved by redirection (see Wikipedia:Redirect). I can help you with this.

I don't know how the ISS Military Balance looks like, but I think I understand what you are after - an article which encompasses the war effort on a large scale. It sounds like a cool idea. I will contribute in the ways I can, but I fear it will be limited since I live in a small town and have very few resources at my disposal (libraries etc.). Furthermore I am also into many other things on Wikipedia. My recommendation is that when you have started your project and contributed the first data, you can always put notices on appropriate talk pages (e.g. World War II, Technology, Equipment) to let people know that help is wanted.

As I said, I fear my contributions will be limited, but I am always willing to help/share my views on organizational and technical matters. And as you probably already have understood, I also seem to be into the graphics aspect, finding appropriate images, making charts etc.

Anyway, good luck! I will help in the ways I can.

My regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 11:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Air War

Do you have any stats on US Airman killed in the war? Any breakdown by different US Air Forces? The stats I have seen are CRAZY.

PS What do you have for the RAF?

Two Links on WW2 in the Air
[1]

[2]

There is quite a bit of data posted on these sites----Berndd11222 11:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Friendly note about the 3-revert rule

Hi!

I see you are involved in a content dispute on the Joseph Stalin article. I don't want to take a stand on that, but I'd like to make you aware of the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. This also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert. Doing many reverts is considered unproductive and breaking the 3-revert rule can even get you blocked from editing for shorter periods. I definitely don't want that to hapen with all the good work you're doing here, so, please be carefull with the reverts. I know you do them in good faith, but this rule is one every editor have to follow. Thanks! Shanes 02:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand you feel strongly about it and I'm not saying I disagree with your wording in that article. Just asking you to be carefull with reverting an article many times since there is this 3-revert rule that everyone has to obey. Try reaching a concencus with the other editors on the Stalin talk page instead. Thanks again! Shanes 02:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No need to contact me

Thanks for your post re. the Stalin page. However, I keep this and many other pages on my watch list, so there is no need to inform me of changes on my talk page. I'm sure you were just being courteous, but really, there's no need.

Regarding Czechoslovakia, I suggest you add to, or edit, the article if you feel the description of the "election victory" is inaccurate, and, of course, cite your references. Thanks! Camillus (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for barging in - I have noticed the reverts in the Joseph Stalin article and can't help commenting. I can give you two references for the statement in question, one from Wikipedia and one from an external source. [3] [4].

Also, should that carry any weight, as someone who was born in the former Czechoslovakia and was indirectly affected by these events, I can certify the veracity of this claim. Czechoslovakia and all of the other countries from the former Soviet zone of influence turned into dictatorships involuntarily. Moreover, they were forced to keep that form of government as several deployments of Soviet troops have shown. See also iron curtain. Best Jbetak 05:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yugoslavia deads in WWII

Sir,

Afar looking RUSSIA Land of Tsars documentary I went to Internet to verify dead toll in WWI. Unfortunately WIKIPEDIA appeared (Populist-Encyclopedia, new way of "CNN-Coca Cola" style crap. 99% equal to other encyclopedias but this 1% is what makes the difference. The best lie is the one that consist of great deal of truth but then one small and crucial exception) in the list so I have open it and found your analysis on a number of deeds in Yugoslavia. It is true about Germans, Italians and others that left. However, it is irritating the reference you have used : Vladimir Zerjavic 1993 (especially the YEAR)

The man who will be close ally of a Franjo Tudjman man who was proven to be in favor of nazi doctrine towards the Jews and Serbs, saved by dead from being captured in Hague as a war criminal. His published comments on Jews and Serbs were noticed throughout the world and you can easily find them on internet.

The same historian (Vladimir Zerjavic) have said:

"One should also believe that the Serbians in Croatia, who have lived in these territories for more than four centuries, will realize that they are not endangered in a community with Croatians. They especially should not be afraid that any form of genocide could occur, because they themselves know best that during the Second World War a large number of Croatians stood at their defense, and that they, along with Serbians, contributed to the National Liberation War, and even prevented a larger number of victims"

The man who participated in government who exactly did opposite and proved the wildest fears of that people. The true nature of "Croatian fighting for Serbs" is shown in the last war where they have finally managed to do what was not achieved in WWII. Ethnically cleansed it from Serbian people... The very same man was protecting Croatian commandant of this operations and deeds of "defenders". He says they run in help of the people in the war. However, there are almost no more Jews and Serbs in Croatia today... Logic?

I am not historian by profession, however logic and math are my firm ground. Simple logic makes historian to be failure. Which logic you have used when referred to that man, with such an ideas...

FYI, after the WWII huge number of Muslims declared themselves as Serbs. Eventually they reverted their claims back in 60's and 70's. It can be easily noticed by simple glance of demography picture of Yugoslavia (especially BiH, Republic of Srpska) in second half of 20th century. Their declaration masked disappeared Serbian population. I can tell you from my own experience where my grandmother family (in Slavic way it means almost everyone with that surname) was wiped out from planet, two grandfather brothers were killed and this is from my mother side only. From father side my grandfather was killed and one brother and one sister of my grandmother were killed. Not as solders but as civilians captured in their houses. All friends that I have, and I have them a dozen with similar origin (today’s BiH, Croatia, Republic of Srpska) have similar stories.

That communist were playing with digits, unfortunately, I do not deny. However, fact that this TITO was a Croat with whom "International community" get along well and that "International Community" DID NOTHING to pursue the issues of dead Serbs and Jews in Balkans, like it now blackmails one nation to deliver war indicted criminals in the last war in Yugoslavia to Hag tribunal, that it DID NOTHING for the commander of the Jasenovac concentration camp (Balkan Auschwitz) to be brought to justice until he was find by journalists in 1999, this fact does not lit any light in your logic mechanism..???.

Did you try to consult Simon Wiesenthal /www.wiesenthal.com/ center. I am afraid you did not... Why? ... I will live it to your mechanism to try to conclude... Just match this words (Holly Roman Empire - Byzantium, Crusade Teutonic - Alexandar Nevsky, Prussia-Russia(Orlov), Prussia-Russia(Stalin -> no more Prussia), Jews... And it is easy to understand your choice of truth. I am not claiming I am right. I am just urging you to reconsider the following:

"Sometimes some of us rather refer to those who match their thoughts than those who match the thing that might be truth. The facts, even they know them well, merely serve to backup what was pre-assumed then to search what might come out of them. Right?"

With huge disappointment,

Jondear13@yahoo.com

One unjustice done to German people wan't be undone by neglecting unjustice done to others. But quite contrary. It will just firm the fealing of fear and no-trust, and divisons will remain waiting for another wars....

Jondear13@yahoo.com

WWI In Yugoslavia

Lapsus:

.... second half of 20th century....

German casualties

Most documentaries as well as historians Ive read put the number of German military deaths at 3,500,000. I think we need more sources if we are to confirm this number or the current one in the article. Davies' Europa puts the number at 3,500,000 according to a few sources. Ksenon 23:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Overmans is a well known and respected historian. He derived his on German casualties using the German High Command records. Germany had 2 million missing in addition to 3.3 million confirmed deaths. The important point to keep in mind is that total demographic losses were 7.5 million including civilians. If you say Germany lost 3.5 million in the military then there were an additional 2.0 million civilian dead( which makes no sense) or 2.0 million German soldiers still alive in the USSR in 1955. Overmans has done a professional job that is credible. He was given access to the German High Command records and used statistical analysis to derive his data. As far Davies is concerned I can't comment since I have not seen his book Europa. My guess is that he copied the standard figure of 3.5 million that has been copied by most English language sources since 1947. I never ever copy a statistic, I check it before posting to the page. Germany lost 7.5 million in the war. This can be confirmed by demographic evidence. I have explained how the detalis losses in the footnotes.--Berndd11222 00:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanx Barney

Belatedly, for your recent note on my page. I hope you are coming back, your contributions to World War II casualties have been astronomical. Grant65 | Talk 03:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable, what happened?

WHy have you left without a sound? I would like to discuss German wwii figures with you. Ksenon 07:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Bernd, please, do come back, perhaps I was too hasty in putting up the template. I would like to discuss the casualties, ie specifying how many dies in POW camps, etc. Could you maybe drop by Eastern Front (World War II) and give your expertise on the subject? Would be awesome. All the best, Ksenon 07:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

re ww2 casualties

Sorry for the late respons, I've been quite ill the last few days and not in shape at all to follow wikipedia. Feeling better now, and it looks like the disputed tag is off now and back to where it was. Regarding disputes on that page, I think they are to be expected since some sources differ from others in numbers and what they include. I sugest we leave it open for other published casualty numbers to be included, but they should then be consistant figures all citing authorative sources like your numbers do. Shanes 07:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please come back!

I have understood you have left Wikipedia for some reason I am not aware of. I guess it is because of some dispute, but I want to say the following:

1. Your contributions have been extremely appreciated, not the least by me!
2. Wikipedia needs people like you!
3. Eventually disputes will arise in any case, due to the nature of wikipedia interaction, but they can be resolved!
4. And, due to human nature(?), criticism is often more frequent than appreciation, why this is, I don't know

Anyway, if you decide to leave Wikipedia, you will most definitely be sorely missed! Please come back, Barney.

Your friend, Dennis Nilsson. --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 21:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

WW2 casualties in Yugoslavia

Hello Bernd,

Thank you for referring me to the source of information on WW2 casualties in Yugoslavia. I shall pursue no further. If number of victims is wrong, I don't know. I think that it is not possible that more people than that died. Btw, it is really tiring to see some people trying to justify recent attrocities in ex Yugoslavia by 45 years old war crimes. You can be assured that Yugoslav Communist Party dealt very heavily with war criminals after WW2 and only the richest escaped (Of course, these were the worst). [Kreso Bilan] 86.141.95.122 21:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Soviet military casualties

I remember reading that (I think Gulag Archipelago)that many returning Soviet soldiers and POWs were killed by their own military. Do you have any numbers or knowledge of this?

Also Stalin allowed many peasants to starve to death. Are these numbers used as WWII casualties?

Rcm1945 12:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)I am new to Wikpedia and don't know where to read your reply. So I will keep looking in the discussions for any information you may have.

Rcm1945 Rcm1945 12:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC) ʉ

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)