Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 12 November 2024 [1].

German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war

[edit]
Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 19:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the second largest Nazi mass killing, also one of the least known. I'm not a fan of the title, but I think the article is now ready for FAC after going through GAN and GOCE, for which I thank Catlemur and Miniapolis (t · c) buidhe 19:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from Joeyquism

[edit]

There was a good point brought up on this article's talk page about its title. What I'm primarily concerned about is WP:NPOV with regards to the word "atrocities" - while anyone with a working conscience would, of course, label these acts as atrocities, I'm not sure if this is neutral phrasing. There's mention of using the term "war crimes" instead; perhaps this would be a better descriptor? If that term is incorrect due to sources saying otherwise/definitions imposed by authoritative bodies or simply just not to your taste (it would make the title longer and introduce another instance of the word "war"), let me know. joeyquism (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe: I might add that I should be able to commit to a full review soon, and I will likely start after my move in a couple of days (though moving efforts will ultimately take precedence). If I don't get anything down here within the next one-and-a-half to two weeks, you are welcome to ping me liberally. joeyquism (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. My main objection to the title is that the article's scope is more broad—it covers the totality of experiences of prisoners of war, which were not necessarily atrocities or war crimes. In a lot of cases, the sources don't specify whether something is a war crime, although they are clear that many violations of the Geneva conventions occurred. (t · c) buidhe 03:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This reasoning seems fair enough. I will not press on the title any further. joeyquism (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

I will try to come back for a "proper" review, but two small points for now:

  • As we only have the one map in the article, I worry that it gives the impression of representing the total scale of German advances into the USSR, when of course it shows only quite a small fraction of it. Two options, I think -- either add another one later on, to show advances up to Moscow/Stalingrad, or replace it with one that shows the whole campaign, perhaps phased by year.
  • If we're going to use a German noun, like Blitzkrieg, as a native word in italics, we need to capitalise it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The map was chosen to show the quick advances at the beginning of the camp which enabled the Germans to capture so many prisoners. I'm not attached to that map in particular, but I didn't see any others that made the speed of the advance as clear. I wonder if any confusion could be alleviated by explicitly pointing it out in the caption. Fixed the capitalization issue. (t · c) buidhe 22:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm imagining one with nice labelled lines, or coloured waves, showing the frontline at the end of each year, but I'm not sure if Commons has one of those. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this map exists but I thought it was harder for readers to take in than the one I used. (t · c) buidhe 12:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, pros and cons to each. Two maps might be the way to go? I might have a look on Commons and see if I can suggest anything sensible. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe and UndercoverClassicist, Here's a map that might work as an addition or replacement to address the concerns raised above. Its based on the [[this map|unused map]] buidhe mentioned above that has conquered areas colored by date, such as UC suggested (if I'm understanding colored waves correctly). It has the Soviet army pockets, whose placement is based the two West Point maps (one used in this article) on the Eastern Front (both linked in the map description). It varies from the base map in that some of the schematic advance lines were adjusted to make the formation of the pockets more clear, and it has some minor cosmetic changes. I think it helps cover the bases implied in the above discussion:
  • It highlights the Soviet army pockets, which play a major role in this article, whereas they are somewhat hidden in the West Point map.
  • Almost all the schematic arrows correspond to an actual line of advance, but avoid all the military designations, which aren't germane to the article.
  • This map extends beyond August, going to the Battle of Moscow in December.
  • It shows the later pockets, such as Kiev, Vyazma, and Bryansk.
This is just a suggestion on an issue already discussed. If it doesn't serve the article's needs, its construction was an interesting way to think a bit more deeply about the article. Wtfiv (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a great piece of work: certainly looks clear and that it would do the job well, though I'm not really qualified to pronounce as to its accuracy or whether it fits the purpose needed in this article: I will leave that to buidhe. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks wftiv! Your map looks great :) (t · c) buidhe 03:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad it was useful! Since you used it, I rebuilt the entire map as an .svg, making it more consistent, easier to edit, and more scaleable. Wtfiv (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captured Red Army soldiers (in infobox): is this quite complete -- wouldn't some prisoners have come from e.g. NKVD formations or the naval infantry? Suggest "Captured Soviet troops".
    • Ok
  • The Nazi leadership believed that war with its ideological enemy was inevitable: consider expanding this a little -- I know it's a long story, but it's somewhat germane to the point why the Nazis thought of the USSR as such an inevitable and hated enemy.
    • Clarified the reasons the source gives for this belief
  • preventative killings: sounds a little euphemistic: is this the term used in the literature?
    • Yes, well, the source says "preemptive killings"
  • War aims included securing natural resources, including agricultural land to feed Germany, metals and mineral oil for German industry: cadence is better if you either lose the first comma or add one before the final and: at the moment, it's a little loose as to how each part flows together.
    • I shortened the sentence by removing the last clause
  • The vast majority of German military manpower and materiel was devoted to the invasion, which was carried out as a war of extermination with complete disregard for the laws and customs of war.: changing tone a little, can I just put on record my approval of this kind of phrasing -- it would be easy to shy away from being so straightforward about it out of mistaken NPOV concerns, but you do an excellent job of being absolutely explicit about what we are talking about while keeping everything well within what can be supported from the evidence.
  • Informed by Nazi racial theory and Germany's experience during World War I,: I understand the first bit, but what does Germany's experience in WWI have to do with the idea that Muslims are "better" than Ukrainians?
    • This factor was separate from Nazi racial theory (according to the source), which doesn't elaborate much but cites another highly reliable source that I can't check. During WWI the Germans recruited some nationalities into the war effort, but faced problems with "unreliability". (t · c) buidhe 13:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • by killing communist functionaries and Soviet Jews, it was expected that resistance would quickly collapse: the passive voice is tricky here ("by whom?"): suggest "they expected".
    • Done
  • Soviet prisoners of war were held under tighter control, and had a higher death rate: as this is a comparative statement, I would make it an explicit comparison: "than those of other nations"; "than those of western European ethnicity"? I'd be interested to know what the Nazis made of e.g. African and Asian troops fighting for the western Allies.
    • Compared to those mentioned in the last couple of sentences : Soviet urbanites and ghettoised Jews. Made it more clear
  • generally adhered to it with prisoners of other nationalities: perhaps not totally to the point here, but did this apply to e.g. black American soldiers, those believed to be gay, or Jews?
  • there were no legal gray areas: consider ambiguities per MOS:CLICHE?
    • done
  • Helmuth James Graf von Moltke was one of the few high-ranking officials: can we say what his position was?
    • As the article says he supported treating all prisoners according to the Geneva Convention, is there a way to make this more clear?
      • Sorry, I meant “position” as in his rank, job etc — we’ve said he was important, but can we be more specific? UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • he was in the Abwehr (t · c) buidhe 20:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Just looking at his Wikipedia page -- was he really all that high ranking? His job seems to have been fairly ordinary: when I hear "high-ranking", I think senior government ministers, generals, heads of agencies and so on: was he anything close to that? UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Pohl says that "hardly anyone" (presumably on the German side) supported treating POWs according to the Geneva Convention. Revised (t · c) buidhe 13:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • As we've presented it, we've claimed to know that almost all people in Germany supported war crimes against Soviets. That's a big claim -- is that something Pohl a) alleges and b) could reasonably be able to prove? Otherwise, something like "Nazi officials", "figures within the regime", or similar might help. I don't think the point is wrong at all, but that makes it all the more important to be ironclad on the details. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            @Buidhe: I think this is the last unresolved issue here? UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            Sorry I missed this. The reason I wrote it the way I did originally was that I thought he was referring to officials with some influence on the actual policy, but technically there isn't explicit support for this in the text. After looking at the context I think it's clear that he is referring to views within the Wehrmacht, but it's unclear exactly which group of Wehrmacht personnel he is referring to. "The murder of Soviet prisoners of war was undoubtedly controversial within the Wehrmacht... Hardly anyone, however, advocated treatment of Soviet prisoners of war that was fully in line with international law; one of the few who did so was Helmut James Graf von Moltke." (t · c) buidhe 14:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            Current phrasing is good, I think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the rapid encirclement actions that the German commanders expected in the blitzkrieg: you will know more about this than me, but I gather that military historians are increasingly sceptical of the idea that Blitzkrieg was a coherent doctrine, rather than a post-facto myth that conveniently explained the rather inadequate Allied response to the invasion of France.
    • I don't have any knowledge of this, actually, so I rewrote not to use the word blitzkrieg.

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mark Edele gets the microphone for practically all of the section on why Soviet soldiers surrendered. Does this represent WP:DUEWEIGHT -- are there other voices of equal/greater weight that could/should be brought in here?
    • None of the other books really address this topic.
  • The Waffen part of Waffen-SS needs to be italicised (really, the whole thing should be in a lang template, but I'm not sure how well that plays with links plus regular italicisation).
  • Red Army soldiers overtaken by the German advance without being captured were ordered to present themselves to the Wehrmacht: we've usually avoided gratuitously Germanising perfectly normal terms, which I think is the right way to go (I think this reddit thread puts the case quite well), but this seems to be an exception: why not "German Army" (or "German armed forces" vel sim), as we have used elsewhere? If we are desperate to use a German word, we should italicise and use lang templates.
    • I've taken out all mentions of Wehrmacht in the article
  • The number of Soviet soldiers captured fell dramatically after the Battle of Moscow in late 1941: is it worth being explicit that this was because the Germans started losing at this point?
    • Pohl doesn't make this connection, I searched through the relevant chapter in Hartmann and he doesn't either. I will check if it's in the Quinkert book.
  • Why does Dulag get an explanation but stalag not? The latter also needs a capital letter.
    • Rewrote
  • , when the Commissar Order was rescinded: I would rework this section a little, to initially explain what the Commissar Order was, then what happened under it, then what happened after it was rescinded. At the moment, we rely on the reader knowing or being able to infer what the order demanded.
    • Done
  • Contradictory orders were issued for the execution of female combatants in the Soviet army, who defied German gender expectations, but the orders were not always followed: can we be a little clearer as to what some of these orders were -- presumably, as with the commissars, a spectrum between "kill them all" and "treat them with particular respect"?
    • Rewrite
  • the OKW's Allgemeines Wehrmachtsamt.: see comment earlier about German terms -- if this one is really untranslatable, we should at least explain what it was in English.
  • the Korücks,: likewise -- can we explain who these people were?
    • To be honest, I don't really understand. I may do more research, or it may be that the intricacies of the chain of command are not WP:DUE (given that they aren't even mentioned in most of the sources). Update: I decided take out these couple sentences. (t · c) buidhe 13:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A figure of 200,000 to 250,000 deaths in transit is provided in Russian estimates: we imply here that other estimates are available, or that these might not be above suspicion -- can we expand on either side?
    • I only put it this way because both of the cited sources state explicitly that it is a "Russian estimate" (apparently from Rossija i SSSR ν vojnach XX veka. Statisticeskoe issledovanie. Red. G. F. Krivoseev. Moskva 2001)
  • Make sure that date ranges, including in work titles, have endashes (I noticed Moore 2022).
    • Fixed
  • "barbed-wire fences" should have a hyphen, as a compound modifier.
    • Done
  • the encirclements of Vyazma and Bryansk: can we put an explicit date on this?
    • Done
  • The vast majority of prisoners (ethnic Russians) : I think this would be more grammatical as "Ethnic Russians, the vast majority of the prisoners, were not..."
    • Done
  • prisoners were released so they could volunteer for the Wehrmacht or the police: see my point earlier about the word Wehrmacht.
  • About one-third became Hiwis: suggest explaining what Hiwis were.
    • Reworded
  • Wehrmacht soldiers often conducted the executions: as above.
  • a stereotypically-Jewish appearance: MOS:HYPHEN says not to use a hyphen when the compound modifier is formed by a regular -ly adverb.
    • done
  • With Wehrmacht cooperation, Einsatzgruppen units: I think Einsatzgruppen may have to stay as untranslatable, but see earlier comments about Wehrmacht and lang templates.
    • As with Waffen-SS, the majority of scholarly English language sources don't italicize.
  • five to 25 percent escaped detection: MOS:NUM would like consistency.
    • Done
  • Invalid soldiers were in particular danger when the front approached. invalid meaning "sick" is only usually a noun: suggest "disabled", "soldiers too sick to work", or similar.
    • Done
  • if their responses were unsatisfactory, they were discharged from prisoner-of-war status: I think we should be a little more explicit as to what this means -- "discharged" often means "released", especially in a military context.
    • Done
  • Suggest knocking the "were" out of the "killed at Mauthausen" link to break the sea of blue.
    • Done
  • Hitler opposed recruiting Soviet collaborators for military and police functions, blaming non-German recruits for defeat in World War I.: would this point be useful further up to explain what we meant about Germany's WWI experience causing animosity to certain eastern European ethnicities?
    • I could move it up but then it wouldn't explain in this section why Hitler opposed their recruitment, but his underlings disagreed.
  • some having living conditions similar to Wehrmacht soldiers: another beat on the same drum, I'm afraid.
  • 14 in the Turkestan Legion, nine in the Armenian Legion, eight each in the Azerbaijani and Georgian Legions, and seven in the North Caucasian and Idel-Ural Legions.: MOS:FIGURES again.
    • Fixed
  • Employers paid RM0.54 per day per man This and similar values a little later -- it seems intuitive that these are small amounts, but can we contextualise them vs. the price of something worth buying, or the wages of someone like a soldier?
    • Add currency conversion, although I'm not sure how meaningful it is.
  • the Channel Islands, where many died: my impression is that Jersey, at least, was a fairly 'tame' (by Nazi standards!) place to be, both for the soldiers and for the prisoners, at least until Germany started losing badly and food became more scarce. Is the conflation of Norway and the CI justified here?
  • Unlike the Holocaust, where killings occurred far from Germany's borders : we need a mostly in here -- Dachau and Ravensbrück, for example, were certainly in Germany.
    • The vast, vast majority of Jewish holocaust victims were killed east of Germany's 1937 borders. None of the death camps, ghettos, or mass execution sites were located in Germany's prewar territory. Unless they were in the army, a German could well have seen their Jewish neighbors rounded up but would not have witnessed anyone being killed, except perhaps at the very end of the war. Dachau and Ravensbrück, and other concentration camps (except Auschwitz and Majdanek which were located in Poland) were not used for mass executions of Jews.
      • No, but Jews died in Dachau and Ravensbrück, didn't they? I agree there's a difference of degree, but we still surely need something like "almost all", unless we mean to exclude someone who starved or was beaten to death there from the victims of the Holocaust. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • What the cited source says is: "After 1945, many Germans claimed that they had not known about the murder of Jews, which had happened far away... Soviet POWs were dying in huge numbers in camps inside Germany by 1941 – a fact that was widely known and was occurring before most of the Jews had been deported and killed"
  • The caption on the Hess at Minsk photo has a lot of links on common terms that were linked much earlier -- and, I'm afraid, I must ask about "Wehrmacht" again...
    • It's often recommended to repeat links in captions
  • About 500,000 prisoners had been freed by Allied armies by February 1945: is this just on the Eastern Front, or in the West as well?
    • Only the Red Army, clarified
  • German Army scorched-earth tactics: I would cut Army, as the air force played its role too. One might even consider cutting German too -- didn't the Soviets carry out scorched earth tactics as they withdrew?
    • Source says German Army. I don't know if the Red Army used scorched earth tactics but the vast majority of war destruction seems to be attributed to the German occupiers.
  • who fell into enemy hands or was encircled without capture: this seems rather harsh! Am I reading correctly that being surrounded made you a traitor if you didn't surrender?
    • While Moore states, "Servicemen who had been captured and escaped, or who had been encircled but not captured—something that may have applied to up to a million men in the first weeks of the conflict—had been dealt with under the Soviet criminal code as though they had committed high treason and were therefore subject to execution and the confiscation of their property." I was curious about this and tracked down the source he cited (Pavel Polian, ‘The Internment of Returning Soviet Prisoners-of-War after 1945’, in Bob Moore and Barbara Hately-Broad (eds), Prisoners of War, Prisoners of Peace (Oxford: Berg, 2005) p. 127.) Polian does not say that this class of people was considered universally traitors, only that they were screened after the war to find traitors. I rewrote the sentence based on Edele and Polian; it seems like in theory you were not a traitor if you surrendered due to the impossibility of continuing resistance, but in practice you would fall under suspicion.
      • That makes more sense: I suppose the (twisted) Soviet logic would have been that getting yourself encircled might show a less-than-stellar desire to fight and win: perhaps you only got into that situation because you weren't aggressive enough, or were hoping to be captured. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • classified all surrendering commanders and political officers culpable deserters : better as as culpable deserters, or culpable as deserters. If the former, could cut culpable -- you can't be a not-culpable deserter.
    • Done
  • Trawniki men were typically sentenced : I would explain who these people were.
  • According to official statistics, "57.8 per cent were sent home, 19.1 per cent were remobilized into the army, 14.5 per cent were transferred to labour battalions of the People's Commissariat for Defence, 6.5 per cent were transferred to the NKVD 'for disposal', and 2.1 per cent were deployed in Soviet military offices abroad".: an odd place to quote -- this is just bare facts, so better as a paraphrase. It's minor, but the WP:NONFREE case here is not strong.
    • Rewrote
  • Different figures appear in the book Dimensions of a Crime. Soviet Prisoners of War in World War II: better as a colon, not a full stop, between title and subtitle -- but why give the title at all, rather than the author, as we've normally done with scholars' opinions?
    • Non-notable authors, rephrased
  • They were excluded from the Foundation Remembrance, Responsibility and Future fund: this could do with a bit of explanation -- it sounds from the article as though this was a Soviet thing.
    • Done
  • others belonged to the NKVD, People's Militia, were from uniformed civilian services: not grammatical: "to the NKVD or People's Militia, were from..."
    • Done
  • Christian Streit's landmark Keine Kameraden : landmark is a bit WP:PROMO, and I would translate the title for Anglophone readers.
    • Rewrote

That's a first pass -- my admiration continues. Clear and authoritative throughout: purely on prose, I found the "death toll" section slightly less sparkling than the rest, but that may be a reflection of the difficulty of conveying what is essentially a long list of (rather harrowing) statistics. As ever, my respect for taking on such a challenging and important topic and conveying it so well. I hope these comments are helpful, and please do take them as the beginning rather than the end of a conversation. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- apologies for a long and no doubt torturous review, but I hope it's been to the article's benefit. Once again, huge respect for doing an excellent job with such a challenging subject. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary from fifelfoo on all of 1, 1c (inflation specific), all of 2, 3 (textual quotation), 4, including plagiarism samplings

[edit]

I appear to be liable to assist, for various reasons of past personal reading. And in that matter, if people believe my past editing in historiography of state murders would bias me or cause the appearance of bias, please ask me to cease my contributions immediately? I haven't done one of these in a while, so this may take some time, and my standards may be out of alignment with current standards (I did check back on customs and practices last year). If I can have 4 days to get through the major headings? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1a: reviewed: oppose
[edit]
  • I am aware that I'm reviewing a GA
  • Now that is a lede sentence. That's a masterful lede sentence. It is also a masterful lede.
  • "Among the criminal orders issued before the invasion was the execution of captured Soviet commissars." => "Among the criminal orders issued before the invasion was the order for the execution of captured Soviet commissars." Otherwise it appears that the executions happened before the war due to verb chaining issues across comparative verbal clauses.
  • "military planners decided to breach it with the Soviet prisoners" => "with Soviet prisoners" the collective noun doesn't need an article
  • "Soviet Jews, political commissars, and some officers, communists, intellectuals, Asians, and female combatants" => ", some officers," unnecessary "and" within a comma separated noun list.
  • Completely agree with decision to exclude historiography from lede: article isn't "Historiography of…". The implicit historiographical summary of "but far less studied" is an appropriate historical conclusion of interest to the general reader. Really well handled here. Historiography is often too danke for the general reader, but necessary in body. Picked the right lede point in complex terrain.
  • "To increase the speed of conquest, the Germans" do note that I'm reading for stuff like this. The correct noun choices based on the historiographical arguments around "Ordinary men" are observed by readers like me, and I have read for these observations of "avoidance of Clean Wehrmacht" type myths. Correctly handled here, as a note, will observe if ever incorrectly handled (do not expect it to be.) I note that merely a paragraph later Nazi is used correctly to typify a view not universally held, compared to standard German myths of the East. This reinforces my belief that tonal choices of collective agent nouns will be correct.
  • "World War I led to increased antisemitism" => "World War I had lead to increased antisemitism" consider? My en_AU_scholarly views of which English past tense to use may be atypical though. The point being that WWI didn't simply produce a result, but was an active process producing a result in the past.
  • "and recognition of the need to secure food supplies" whose need? Unnamed noun. Suggest "recognition of Germany's need" as this dolchstosselegende myth isn't Nazi specific.
  • "they were less effective than expected because of flight" whose flight? "because of civilian flight" missing noun. Alternately civilian and military flight if more representative of HQRS scholarly judgement? Scholars may have generalised all kinds of flight, regardless of STAVKA's hopes.
    • The source says : "Many managed to flee other large Soviet cities that were under German occupation" so I cannot explicitly say civilian if the source doesn't.
  • "Although the mass deaths of prisoners in 1941 were controversial within the military, Abwehr officer Helmuth James Graf von Moltke was one of the few who favored treating Soviet prisoners according to the law." This is a bit of a mess. Complex multivalued expression with subtle nods to variations. "Although the virtue of mass deaths of prisoners…was controversial… [for purely instrumental reasons of policy?], Abwehr…according to law." I'm not sure what I'm meant to read here as a reader? Sure von Moltke might be admirable because he likes law of war, but what's the controversy about then?: Shoot them now or shoot them later?; Oh we don't want to starve slaves to death, we want to work them to death, work them in conditions of life unworthy of life, demonstratively punish them indefinitely, while your racial views are admirable they are of military detriment to defeating our enemy? Dangling an implicit controversy without explaining it in the sentence leads me unable to read von Moltke's legalism appropriately. Was he legalist in comparison to now/later policy views; was he legalist in comparison to military efficacy is death/ military efficacy is preservation of surrender as possible? This one is really troubling for me as I can't read it to an adequate conclusion of what kind of barbarism OKW/OKH policy level leaders were controverting over.
    • The source does not allow me to elaborate on Moltke's views, which would probably be WP:UNDUE because the article is not about Moltke.
  • "Little planning was made for housing and feeding the millions of soldiers to be captured as part of the rapid encirclement actions that German generals were planning." I've read enough mass human death studies to understand what "little planning" indicates. The general reader may not have? "were planning, the absence of plans implied necessarily deficient ad hoc solutions regardless of intention."? I'm reading here for language, not for OR/HQRS representation obviously. The follow on sentence implies the hermeneutic gap: absence of planning results in deficient outcomes regardless of intention. (With the intentions I'd anticipate supplied below during implementation).
    • I'm not sure what you want me to add here. Some sources highlight the lack of planning and suggest that the mass death was driven by logistical factors rather than malice. Others imply the lack of planning is indicative of malice, or at best depraved, callous, and criminal disregard for human life. But there is one point on which they agree and that's what is encyclopedically included as an undisputed fact; my inclination is to WP:Let the reader decide on the rest.
  • I love the section headings. I hate that I love the section headings (appropriate for the article). They are perfectly chosen, encyclopaedic, representative, NPOV.
  • "In 1941, three or four Soviet soldiers were captured for each one killed in action;" comma unnecessary for clause, "In 1941 three or four Soviet…"
  • "the ratio of prisoners was reduced later in the war" agents "reduce" ratios. Which agent decided to kill more prisoners? Passive voice here is an enemy to good writing in an agentic situation. "German forces reduced the number of captures later in the war." "Soviet operational and strategic art reduced the capacity for German forces to capture more POWs later in…". Do you see what I'm getting at here? Dangling an unspecified agent might be "safe" but it isn't "safe" for a history encyclopaedia article in an area of history where agents ordered people not to surrender or invited people out for a nice clean "partisan" hunt to be off the front lines?
    • Edele's argument isn't that more captured soldiers were killed—but that fewer defected and others were more inclined to put up a fight rather than surrender. (t · c) buidhe 14:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC) I have clarified this point (t · c) buidhe 02:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By mid-December 1941, 79 percent of prisoners (more than two million) had been captured". 79% of what period? All of the GPW? Of 1941? Of the period of rout and retreat to the turning point? And which prisoners? I know it is implied by the article title but it's a dangling absent noun. "in thirteen major cauldron battles."? 79% of prisoners to mid-December 1941 were captured in cauldron battles specifically?
  • "military factors such as poor leadership, lack of arms and ammunition, and being completely overwhelmed by" "and [who] being completely". Soviet soldiers? Soviet commands?
    • I could add another couple "Soviet" modifiers here but that would be repetitive and I believe that the intended meaning is 100% clear from context.
  • "The [] Error: [undefined] Error: {{Lang}}: no text (help): no text (help) " lmftfy. Why is there a de link against Waffen-SS? What editorial decision led to this? does this indicate cross-wiki porting? I'd appreciate an answer as it would go to another section (plagiarism detailed detection). Not a threat by the way, but a request for explanation of the editorial decision.
  • "The Red Army shot prisoners [less often]", German aligned combatant prisoners? Soviet or formerly soviet-aligned prisoners?
    • Clarified
  • "this contributed to a mutual escalation of violence" how did the Red Army shooting fewer prisoners contribute to escalation? It violates the conceptual structure of the initial verbal comparative. Try breaking into separate sentences?
  • "Killings before reaching the collection point [de] are not counted as part of the figures for Soviet prisoner deaths." Okay… so why is there a trailing de link? Whose figures for Soviet deaths? Where has this content come from? Seriously, from a plagiarism basis where has this come from? Stranded sentences that are incoherent in the paragraphs' argument that reference cross-wiki content make me really bloody worried about copyvio/closepara. Separate from cv/cp issues, whose figures, and why do we care? "OKH compiled figures ignored deaths prior to concentration at collection points." "Post-war Soviet figures neglected as POW deaths deaths prior to collection by OKH POW authorities." See the issue with a lack of a collective noun?
    • The link is a result of trying to avoid jargon (see some of UC's comments above), not copyvio from a foreign language source. The death statistics referred to are the German ones, since Soviet collection of information naturally cannot distinguish between missing and prisoners. Nevertheless, I have clarified. (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "overtaken by the German advance without being captured were ordered to present themselves to the German authorities under the threat of summary execution" were ordered by whom? STAVKA? OKH? Kinda matters there. One's a lawful order, the other is an order given to unsurrendered combatants by OPFOR. The collapsed nouns are causing real problems in reading. I know what you're saying because I'm already aware of which institutional authority is responsible for which abhorrent preventable killings, but "average reader" won't be.
  • "Despite the Supreme Command of Ground Forces (OKH) order, prisoners were often taken under such circumstances;[57][54] thousands of Red Army soldiers were executed on the spot as "partisans" or "irregulars"". So we have a comparative between "Despite X: prisoners were taken; thousands of Soldiers were shot." That's not a good construction. Break into sentences to avoid spanning comparatives. "OKH ordered shootings. Prisoners were often taken by Heer units despite OKH commands. Yet thousands of Red Army soldiers were executed." Breaking into sentences prevents OKH orders spanning opposed comparatives.
  • "Others evaded capture " which others? OKH, Heer, Soviet soldiers? There are three major nouns in the prior multi clause sentence, you need to reestablish the central noun.
  • I have reached "Processing." I believe this is a sufficient basis to oppose on 1a. Failed noun targets, verbal clauses which avoid comparatives correctly, and passive voice avoiding assigning agentic power to responsible state authorities is sufficient. The clarity of the lede isn't present in the body where implied subjects and objects have to be read for aggressively exist. I will of course continue the review in other areas I identified I'd review, and expect good results there. (rest of 1, 2, plagiarism). Generalised editing on the points above throughout the article would be required for reassessment of this criteria (which I'd be happy to do.) Fifelfoo (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've rephrased in most of the above cases, while there are a few where I felt the suggestion was not an improvement. While I appreciate your feedback helping to improve the article and reduce the potential for misunderstanding, other editors seem to feel there is sufficient clarity from context. Some vagueness is inevitable, indeed appropriate, when dealing with many agencies issuing conflicting orders and people on the ground not necessarily following any of them. (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1c Well-researched inflation specific: improvement needed
[edit]

I am not attacking the sources selected, or the choice to make a calculation for the purposes of the readers' benefit. Nor am I attacking the choice of calculation for comparison (USCPI). But there are two problems with the inflations: US cents are not specified (a wide variety of nations use cents); Current footnote 190abc Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis 2019. doesn't indicate that the calculation was a triviality performed by editorial staff. Consider "Approximately 13 cents in contemporary US dollars,[189] or $2 today." and "Calculated using Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis 2019." Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure, I'm not attached to this way of indicating inflation, but I used it because it was already in other featured articles, including the Holocaust in Slovakia. I did add "United States" for clarification. (t · c) buidhe 14:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not troubled by the editorial decision to use a post-war interstate arbitration of values between RM and USD, or your choice of CPI as appropriate inflator: these are good editorial decisions in inflation. Wages of unskilled workers (as Soviet POWS were forced to labour) is an appropriate CPI inflation use. I'm concerned about attribution of the calculation, and indication that the "modern comparator" is in USD. I think many people across the world can readily recognise USD values in beer and skittles, rent and hours of labour. Please see this edit: attempted indication of calculation for me indicating a fix. If you like the fix, please incorporate it. I am going to indicate that I'd 1c Inflation Only oppose over attribution of calculation, by I understand FAC moderators know who I am, and what bee I have in my bonnet over inflation calculation and the potential for original research in this domain, and that in my oppose they would read that I do not consider the underlying choice of inter-state value transformation or CPI as incorrect. They would weight my oppose on 1c inflation only appropriately. (compared to my expectation that every other category of my review would be support / resolved). Do you see what I'm getting at with the sample edit? We're showing that the calculation is Wikipedia's because the calculation is trivial here. Trivial equalling "not OR". Thank you for indicating the reference cents are USD cents.
    • Additionally in relation to other FAs: "Other stuff exists." I'm reviewing the high quality article that your editorial community has put time into on its merits in front of my eyes: FAC coordinators know how to value my opinion and would not overweight it. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1e Stability: support
[edit]

I'm convinced the article is stable, I noted a series of 3K additions, and removals, the talk page appears to have been functioning when these emerged and raised them, and editors on the talk page sought as editors to reach a proper editorial resolution including asking for external assistance without prompting or conflict requiring such. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 Media: query (resolved)
[edit]

Have you considered using blockquotes drawn from primary sources which are themselves used in secondary sources as "typifying" of individual experiences? Text can act as media. It is useful for blending "colour" with "personal experience" and "voice from the era"? This is a query only, not a decline. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure that the encyclopedia's goals include capturing "colour", "personal experience" and "voice from the era". Furthermore, you don't find many similar quotations in a lot of related articles, including FAs. I'm not opposed to quotations but I only add them if I feel that it increases the reader's encyclopedic understanding more than paraphrasing/rewriting, per MOS:QUOTE. (t · c) buidhe 14:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for responding to this query. I was following MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE's concept of media as "an important illustrative aid to understanding." While I've got the reading to experience the illustrative affect (emotional reaction) to the image files presented. From your MOS:QUOTE: "Quotation should be used, with attribution, to present emotive opinions that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice, but never to present cultural norms as simply opinional." My personal editorial opinion is that History articles can benefit from illustrative blockquotes from primary sources acting "as Media," for the purposes we use other media for. I must admit that I contributed significantly to the essay, which includes the observation at WP:HISTIP, "A fact qualifies for illustration when a major scholarly text explicitly demonstrates a point by reference to a primary source, or quotes a primary source in demonstration of a major (as weighted) fact." Text causes me to react in ways illustrative image media doesn't. I'm not suggesting quoting Idi i smotri. As the sponsoring editor you may have read the most reputable scholarly sources who themselves cannot avoid quoting primary sources to illustrate the impact on humans that encamped starvation or sub-survival calorie slave labour do not have when referred to technically. I trust your judgement entirely here, but was suggesting a category of historical media that is sometimes neglected. If a more versed editor than I could recommend an example of a recent historical FA that quotes a primary source in terms of WP:HISTIP's suggestions I would value their example of style, as I've been on an extended wikibreak. Thank you again for considering this query, I've noted it as resolved based on your consideration. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statistical graphic "Soviet prisoners of war by year of capture" almost certainly requires sourcing for its stats. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The data is cited in the Commons image description as recommended, which you get to by clicking on the image. (t · c) buidhe 14:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4 Length: support
[edit]

I am satisfied the length suits the topic, and the section lengths suit the importance of the sections to the encyclopaedic presentation. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Shushugah

[edit]
  • Specify USD$ in the footnotes
    • Done
  • Consistently italicize and capitalize the German words used, e.g Abwher -> Abwher and lebensraum -> Lebensraum
    • I capitalized lebensraum but I don't agree with italicizing when most English sources don't (Abwehr, Waffen-SS, etc.)
  • Use Umlaut consistently or not (ä replaced with ae etc..) e.g Flossenbürg becomes Flossenbuerg
  • I understood the comparison of Polish/Russian prisons of war, but given it mentions other civilians of Russian citizenry, I am surprised by lack of mention of World War II casualties of Poland which is one of the highest in WW2.
    • why is this relevant to include? It's certainly not true in absolute terms, where the Soviet losses dwarfed everyone else's. Losses were proportionally higher in the western Soviet union as well
  • I was confused by the racial hierarchy paragraph; Nazi racial theories § Slavs left me more confused what is meant by Asians, and what is meant by Russian, particularly with counter-examples of Georgians being consider Aryan potentially on one hand, and Ukrainians being called "Untermentsch" on the other.
    • Where Soviet citizens were concerned there was a clear hierarchy of treatment in practice, which was only partly based on Nazi racial theories." Asian does not mean Georgian but Central Asians, Siberians who looked" Mongoloid ". I can try to source more explanation on that point
  • @Buidhe and Shushugah: is there more to come from either of you here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild @Buidhe thanks for the ping! The link to Mongoloids for Asians helped me better understand what is being referred within local racial hierarchies. I am happy to give my suppport and wanted to mention some small nitpicks (not blockers for my support)
    ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Shushugah. Without actually checking the captions, I assume that the perceived problem is because they adhere to MOS:CAPFRAG ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild exactly. I see that consistency between sentence and caption fragment is not explicitly required. Some of the captions could easily be converted into sentences, but not required nor beneficial. So strike my feedback on MOS:CAPFRAG. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the wikilink, appreciate feedback and your support :) (t · c) buidhe 03:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

It's great to see a high quality article on this very important topic. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • I agree that the article seems miss-titled given it covers all aspects of how the Germans treated Soviet POWs. The current title could give readers the impression that only some Soviet POWs were subjected to atrocities or that this was a sub-set of the German policies.
  • There's a fair bit of over-linking. I'd suggest using one of the tools to identify duplicate links.
    • Guidance on MOS:REPEATLINK has changed and I believe the article fulfills the new standards (it's now recommended to repeat links each section where that aids reader understanding): many readers don't go in order.
  • "To increase the speed of conquest, the German invaders planned to feed their army by looting" - from memory, Adam Tooze argues in The Wages of Destruction that this was also due to the weakness of the German war economy
    • I'm not sure if that is worth mentioning in this article, it's not mainly about pillage.
      • The statement that this was done only to "increase the speed of conquest" is an oversimplification. The strain that the German war economy was under is relevant to the topic of this article, so it seems a good idea to get details like this right. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because prisoners of war were held under tighter control than urban or Jewish civilians, they had a higher death rate from starvation" - this seems out of place
  • The text starting with "It is disputed if the German command" doesn't really cover the differing views and who holds them
    • OK, I have attempted to rewrite. I think sources agree that as time went on the labor of prisoners was prioritized, but where they differ is emphasizing logistical vs ideological factors, and whether it is a "mass killing" or only "mass death".
  • "Especially in 1941, the German Army often refused to take prisoners on the Eastern Front and shot Soviet soldiers who tried to surrender." - this sentence seems far too categorical. It would also be good to explain whether this was the actions of individual soldiers or whether they were directed to not take prisoners (or a bit of both)
    • clarified that these do not seem to be ordered from above, but tacitly tolerated by the military leadership
  • "Red Army soldiers overtaken by the German advance without being captured were ordered by the Supreme Command of Ground Forces (OKH) to present themselves to the German authorities under the threat of summary execution" - how could and did the German high command order Soviet soldiers to do this?
    • "Schon am 25. Juli 1941 befahl das OKH, versprengte Rotarmisten hätten „sich sofort bei der nächsten deutschen Wehrmachtsdienststelle zu melden. Geschieht das nicht, sind sie von einem gebietsweise festzusetzenden Zeitpunkt ab als Freischärler anzusehen und entsprechend zu behandeln."" and what was the result? "Im Rahmen der Partisanenbekämpfung wurde nicht nur in Zivil untergetauchten Soldaten, sondern sogar aufgegriffenen Uniformierten die Erschießung angedroht." Yes, the order was actually directed at Red Army soldiers, although the extent to which it reached them was debatable: "Mit Hilfe von Fristen sollte das deutsche Besatzungsgebiet „von Versprengten gereinigt" werden53. Aber war es realistisch und vor allem fair, die in den Wäldern und Sümpfen vagabundierenden Uberlebenskünstler mittels Plakaten und Flugblättern erreichen zu wollen?"
  • "An estimated 20 percent or more" - what is this a proportion of? The total POWs taken during this period or something else?
    • Clarified
  • "Shooting prisoners was encouraged." - by whom, and who were they encouraging to do this?
    • Clarified
  • "about half were recaptured,[92] and around 10,000 reached Switzerland." - surely far more would have returned home to German occupied territory, cross the front line to Soviet territory or become partisans?
    • that's true but we have no figures for that.
  • "Due to its clear-cut criminality, the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war was mentioned in the International Military Tribunal's indictment" - can you say why?
  • "Viktor Zemskov says" - I'd suggest identifying who this person is (e.g. is he a historian?)
    • Done
  • "Thousands of books have been published about the Holocaust, but in 2016 there were no books in English about the fate of Soviet prisoners of war." - this seems over-simplistic given that the topic is routinely covered in English language works on the Soviet-German war, sometimes in quite a bit of detail.
    • While it's not a perfect metric, I've seen it in multiple sources. It's clear to me that the topic is vastly under studied compared to the number of deaths, even in comparison to other atrocities that killed large numbers of Soviet citizens - such as anti-partisan warfare. (t · c) buidhe 21:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Surely something can be said that acknowledges that there is in fact a sizable English language literature on this topic while also noting the lack of dedicated books? (the English language literature on the Soviet Union's war experiences continues to be very patchy across the board). The topic is usually covered as part of popular works on the war, so English language people with an interest in the conflict should be aware of it as a result. For instance, I first became aware of his issue in the 1990s through Anthony Beevor's enormously popular book Stalingrad, which includes a focus on the experiances of the Soviet prisoners who ended up fighting with the Germans at Stalingrad. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        While that's true, I don't think it's verifiable to make such a claim about the English language literature specifically. Quinkert et al. discuss Russian and German literatures but not publications in English. (t · c) buidhe 01:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've had a poke around academic journal databases, and haven't hard any luck here either. I really don't like this text as it misrepresents the literature, but I guess it's technically accurate. I'd suggest continuing to look for sources here, perhaps in PhD thesis literature review sections and the like. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest briefly noting the far right narrative that has attempted to present the way in which the western Allies held German POWs in 1945 as being directly comparable to the treatment of Soviet POWs. Nick-D (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review (t · c) buidhe 04:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed, though I've left a further response above. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

I am surprised that there has not been an image review so far. Here goes my attempt at one, Buidhe:

Matarisvan

[edit]

Text review:

  • "Although more than a million": "Although" is not necessary here, consider removing?
  • "mass death of prisoners, with": prefix "along" before "with", since we have a conjuctive here?
  • "Little planning was made": "done" instead of "made"?
  • "that was fewer": "the actual number" instead of "that"?
  • "ordered from above": "by the high command" instead of "from above"?
  • "while escaped": "after their escape" would be better grammatically?
  • Link to Gestapo on first use instead of second?
  • "1,487 calories": consider providing the required calories per day for an adult male as a comparable?
    • This is a bit difficult. Many were required to perform hard labor which increases calorie requirements. I did mention that it's a starvation amount even if the POWs received it, which they didn't.
  • "and by the end of the war around a million were": "and the total number released was around a million by the end of the war" would be grammatically better, wdyt?
  • "With the army's cooperation, [] Error: [undefined] Error: {{Lang}}: no text (help): no text (help) units": Fix the lang template?
  • "Soviet Muslims mistaken for Jews were sometimes killed": are any numbers available? If so, consider adding?
    • No
  • "when the front approached": what does "front" mean here? Frontline? Do we intend to say "when the frontline was closer to the camps"?
  • "advocating the transfer": add "for" after "advocating"?
  • "under the control of the SS": "to" instead of under?
  • "Officers were over-represented": are any percentages known?
    • Not in any of the sources consulted
  • Link to Hanover-Wülfel?
    • There isn't a good link, even on de wikipedia the closest is de:Döhren-Wülfel, no en wiki article for that
  • Is the 2015 reparations amount known? If so, consider adding along with an inflation adjusted figure?
    • Done (still recent enough that I'm not sure inflation is helpful to include)
  • "Hartmann's 3 million": Introduce and link to Hartmann here instead of in the legacy section?

Source formatting review:

  • Would you consider adding DOIs and JSTOR IDs for books? If so, I can provide them. Many sources are from OUP, CUP or other university presses which allow access through The Wikipedia Library that is easier than accessing through ISBNs.
    • I have no objection if you want to do it.
  • For Quinkert, Keller, Kozlova, Meier & Winkel and Latyschew 2021, I don't think the following text is necessary if you're using harvc: "Dimensionen eines Verbrechens: Sowjetische Kriegsgefangene im Zweiten Weltkrieg | Dimensions of a Crime. Soviet Prisoners of War in World War II (in German and English). Metropol Verlag. ISBN 978-3-86331-582-5." Just using in1, in2 and year parameters would be enough.
    • I don't understand in1 and the documentation doesn't explain it, as far as I can tell. Could you reformat one of the refs so I can see what you mean?
  • Add archive URLs for "Consumer Price Index, 1800–", Foreign Claims Settlement Commission 1968, Otto & Keller 2019?
    • I don't have the script or bot that does this, but I don't have any objection to it.
  • Remove the links to USGPO, Cambridge University Press, Yale University Press, Militärgeschichtliche Zeitschrift and Russian History? Otherwise you will have to link to all other publishers and journals to maintain consistency.
    • I should now have bluelinked everything that has an enwiki article.
  • Consider adding series and volume numbers for sources which provide these? For example, Pohl 2012, Otto & Keller 2019 etc.
    • I guess I'm not convinced that this is particularly helpful (it isn't needed to find the book) and I try to keep the info in bibliographies to what is actually going to be useful.
  • Is there any material in Keller 2011 which we could add here? Otherwise, if it is similar to the works cited here, then you may have to remove it.
    • It goes into a lot of detail on a particular group of Soviet POWs that are a minority of the total, thus WP:UNDUE to add. We already cite a bunch of info from his summary of his research in Keller 2021. The full book is listed for readers desiring more information on that specifically. If there was a separate article for Soviet prisoners of war in Germany I would remove it and list in there instead.

I'll try to do a source review with spot checks soon. Overall, I found the article impressive and well written, congratulations to you on writing such a great article. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your review, I have actioned everything except some of what I mentioned above. (t · c) buidhe 13:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I have done the biblio formatting, please let me know if my format is ok with you. On the text and source formatting, a support from me. Will try to get the spotchecks done in 1-2 days. Matarisvan (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! All the formatting looks good. Note: I added a source, Westermann 2023, in response to comments above (t · c) buidhe 01:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should be able to get you pdfs of almost all the sources if you can't access them (t · c) buidhe 14:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a problem, I had noticed that addition during my edit and formatted it too. For the spot checks, I will be going through 15 refs which is roughly 6% of the total refs. For generating the ref numbers I will use a random number generator to get as random numbers as possible. Here goes the source review, @Buidhe:
    • All sources are from reliable publishers and authors.
    • #9, #14, #39, #43, #47, #49, #80, #93, #106, #117, #134, #156, #190: all ok
    • #28: mostly ok but I couldn't find the supporting text for "several weeks after the start of the war", since no date is given for Hitler's rejection of POW terms.
    • #254: The second sentence is ok, but the first is not. The source says "Post-war German rationalizations and apologia for the Soviet mortality even included claims that it was the long-term undernourishment of Soviet soldiers by their own Government that had led to their widespread deaths in German captivity" while the article says "After the war, some Germans made apologetic statements about the 1941 causes of mass death". I think you misunderstood what apologia means here, the Germans were not apologizing for the Soviet deaths but trying to defend themselves, one definition of apologia can be "a formal written defence of one's opinions or conduct". So you will have to change the first sentence to some variant of "After the war, there were some German attempts to deflect the blame for the 1941 mass deaths".
    Matarisvan (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For #28, based on the text it occurred before another Soviet order that was dated in August. I'm looking for another source that gives the time frame more explicitly. It is supposed to be in Streim's chapter of this book, but I cannot access it :(
    For #254, I mean apologetic in the second sense listed in the dictionary, but evidently that's not clear so I rewrote it. (t · c) buidhe 20:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't find anything else for #28, but I could remove it if you want. (t · c) buidhe 20:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, let me check by using Streim's book's DOI and JSTOR, I'll wikimail you the page or page range. Matarisvan (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe, Google Books has the access to the relevant pages, namely 295-296, but these also do not have any dates. I think you will have to remove the phrase "several weeks after the start of the war". Matarisvan (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at page 296, these diplomatic communication are dated to July and August 1941—aka within the first several weeks of the war. (t · c) buidhe 13:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The source review a pass then, @Buidhe. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards

[edit]

There are redundancies in the prose. I have made some edits to the Lead as examples [2]. The main problem is the excessive use of "numbers" as in "numbers of" and so forth. Can we check that these are needed and for variations where possible? Graham Beards (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the copyedits. I went through the body and reduced the use of the word "numbers", but I cannot think of a better rephrasing in the remaining cases. Although some could be replaced by "amount", I don't think it would be an improvement. (t · c) buidhe 16:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am pleased to add my Support. Well done. Graham Beards (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "The German military did not record Soviet prisoner deaths that occurred prior to arriving at the collection points." Slightly clumsy. Perhaps a slight rephrase? Eg 'The German military did not record Soviet deaths that occurred prior to prisoners arriving at the collection points' or similar.
  • Only one work has a publisher location (Foreign Claims Settlement Commission). Could we have consistency?
  • "Two-thirds of them died from starvation, exposure, and disease by early 1942". Perhaps 'Two-thirds of them had died from starvation, exposure, and disease by early 1942'.
  • "ranking as one of the highest death rates from mass atrocity in history." Really! Surely there were plenty with a 100% death rate? I note that the same phrase is used in the main article, but the greater context makes it more reasonable to take "rate" as meaning 'number'. I suggest tweaking the wording in both cases, certainly in the lead.
    • "Death rate" doesn't refer to the percentage of people who died, but the ratio of deaths per unit of time, in this case deaths per month: "one of the highest rates of human destruction in history". Is there a way to rephrase it so it's clearer what the source means? (t · c) buidhe 03:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so currently you have "Two-thirds of them had died from starvation, exposure, and disease by early 1942—ranking as one of the highest death rates from mass atrocity in history." I think that if you are going to go with this it needs to be based on a number rather than a fraction. Eg 'By early 1942 over two-thirds of the more than three million Soviet military personal taken prisoner had died.' Then, perhaps in a separate sentence, 'This is one of the highest sustained rates of killing for any mass atrocity in history.' How does this or something like it sound? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done (t · c) buidhe 03:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "More prisoners were shot for being wounded, ill, or unable to keep up with forced marches." Optional, → 'More prisoners were shot because they were wounded, ill, or unable to keep up with forced marches.'

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe. I keep coming across niggly issues in the main article, so I am going to recuse and review in full. I anticipate that much of it will be copy editing. I will do some of it straight into the article. If you disagree with or don't understand any changes, could we discuss that here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Foreign language words, eg Lebensraum, should be in lang templates, not just italics.
    • Done
  • "the German military's High Command (OKW) ... The OKW said ..." OKW only needs introducing once, similarly linking the short form.
  • "Abwehr officer Helmuth James Graf von Moltke was one of the few who favored treating Soviet prisoners according to the law." This seems a bit odd. Why cherry pick this one German soldier to have his opinion detailed?
  • "intent to use the prisoners as a labor reserve before and during the war." Use as labor before the war? (Ie, before they were captured.)
    • There is a better way to phrase this, but the controversy is over whether, before the war and during its first months, Wehrmacht planners intended to feed their prisoners so that they could be deployed in large scale forced labor projects (which would occur once the war started and prisoners were captured) (t · c) buidhe 16:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the invasion of France in 1940, 1.9 million prisoners of war". Just the invasion of France or the whole Western Campaign?
  • "In 1941, three or four Soviet soldiers were captured for each one killed, indicating widespread surrender". This is a tautology. I mean, a PoW pretty much assumes a prior surrender.
  • "thirteen major cauldron battles". Rather than going with the (unexplained) technical term, how about 'thirteen battles where large Soviet forces were surrounded' or similar?
    • Done
  • "a collection point at the division or army level." There were no corps level collection points?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild do you have further input? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 10:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David, I do, I do. Apologies, I am fighting my way out of a nasty, six-day dose of Covid. (Unless I go radio silent again, in which case keep counting.) I shall get onto it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some prisoners had to live in the open for the entire winter, in unheated rooms." Living in even "unheated rooms" is not living "in the open for the entire winter",
  • "Following setbacks in the military campaign, Hitler ordered on 31 October". What military setbacks occurred prior to 31 October?

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The first 200,000 Soviet prisoners of war were deported to Germany in July and August 1941". The first 200,000 to be captured or the first 200,000 to be deported?

That's it from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus

[edit]

I was negatively surprised some minor (but I believe DUE) content was removed since I added it last year. I've readded it and I was immediately reverted by Buidhe. Discussion (started by me few minutes ago) ongoing at artcle's talk: (Talk:German_atrocities_committed_against_Soviet_prisoners_of_war#Relevance_of_the_mention_of_German_atrocities_committed_against_Polish_prisoners_of_war); I'll update this when it is finished, but from my perspective, the article is not comprehensive (and not neutral per WP:DUE) without mentioning this topic in at least a sentence or two (and I am flabbergasted that even a see also mention that was present before was removed...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources aren't about the article topic so they don't show wp:due. That is why the content has been removed multiple times. If the article is supposed to include allied soldiers fighting alongside the Soviet army (it doesn't), it is cherry picking to shoe horn in polish soldiers without mentioning those from Czechoslovakia and other countries. (t · c) buidhe 18:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like Buidhe I fail to see the relevance, or at least the pressing importance, of this information to this article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild The article should briefly mention that Germans committed similar atrocities to other groups of POWs, and link to relevant articles. To me, this seems quite relevant in the context of comprehensive coverage. In addition, we should also (briefly) mention that Soviet themselves committed similar atrocities on POWs they captured (Germans and others), although right now we don't seem to have a relevant article to link to (I'll try to remedy this shortly). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Remedied: Soviet atrocities committed against prisoners of war during World War II and added as a 'see also' to the nominated article. Wonder if this will also be removed? Ideally, of course, this should be incorporated into the article in a relevant place as a blue link, as it is an obvious topic. I will also note that the nominated article is linked from that article as well as from the mentioned Polish article, and nobody is suggesting to remove those links, as the topics are obviously closely related and should be linked from corresponding articles. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is discussed in various sources. For example, it is misleading to discuss the fate of Jewish Red Army soldiers without noting that the same fate befell (often, earlier) Jewish Polish Army soldiers. See ex. Shmuel Krakowski, "The Fate of the Jewish POWs of the Soviet and Polish Armies," in The Shoah and the War, ed. Asher Cohen, Yehoyakim Cochavi, and Yoav Gelber (New York: Peter Lang, 1992), 217–30. Krakowski's work was called, btw, "groundbreaking work on Soviet-Jewish prisoners of war" ([3]) - I am surprised it is not cited at all. Linked article by Polian could also be used to expand the article; I think it needs a section dedicated to the Jewish Soviet POWs. This is how it is done in the German_atrocities_committed_against_Polish_prisoners_of_war#Fate_of_the_Jewish_POWs. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Gog and Buidhe above, I don't think there should be a detailed treatment of Polish PoWs in this article: it is about German atrocities against Soviet prisoners of war. The article certainly doesn't claim, imply or even allow the reading that the Germans only committed atrocities against Soviet PoWs: detailed discussion of the Germans' treatment of e.g. American, Belgian or Polish PoWs would not be WP:DUE except where it is clearly relevant to the Soviet story. For example, at one point the article and its sources use the relatively good treatment of prisoners taken in the Fall of France to demonstrate that the Germans' treatment of Soviet PoWs cannot simply be explained through incompetence or impoverishment. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist FYI there is no detailed treatment of Polish PoWs in the article. After discussion on talk, the mention has been further reduced to short two sentences, and it is primarily used to demonstrate that Soviet POWs were treated much more harshly then Poles (I've just added a precise estimate to back up an imprecise claim made by an article). What puzzles me is Buidhe's repeated insistence of removing even the blue link to a relevant article (i.e. German atrocities committed against Polish prisoners of war). Please take a look at the current version and discussion on article's talk. One sentence and a single link is hardly a "detailed treatment"? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit: It looks like I may have to withdraw the FAC because in my opinion the content added fails the FA criteria (specifically 1c, 1d, and 4) as there is no reliable source that connects the added content to the issue of Soviet prisoners of war. Unless User:UndercoverClassicist, User:Gog the Mild, or others wish to weigh in on the article talk page, Piotrus is claiming that the content he added has consensus and needs to be kept. (t · c) buidhe 02:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Krakowski's source is not a HQRS, nor is one of the sources that Piotrus cited. (t · c) buidhe 02:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree on them not being HQRS. Krakowski's work has been influential and should be mentioned, at least in historiography; without that I don't think 1c would be met. If his claims have been replaced by more modern research, we don't need to cite him, but we should mention his work in the context of bridging Holocaust and POW discourse. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. Regarding the other source you recently criticized, Piotrowski, while I also disagree on him not being HQRS, as I said elsewhere, it is not necessary and can be removed, go ahead. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PPS. Copying from another discussion: "Oh, and on 1c, you should consult Polish and Soviet/Russian historiography on this topic. [2] for example ("The article concerns the motif and theme of Soviet prisoners of war in Russian literature"), [3] ("Crime, Politics, Humanitarism. Tragedy of the Soviet Captives on the Polish Land during the World War II") seem quite relevant, for example. I expect 'Legacy and historiography' section could be expanded much more than its current three short paragraphs with German, Russian and Polish studies." Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a lot more that could be cited on legacy from the sources I cited, however, I think the article already goes into the right amount of detail.
    Jewish POWs were a tiny percentage of the total. They are already discussed adequately, to discuss them any more would probably be disproportionate, leaving aside HQRS issues. (t · c) buidhe 03:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I am not opposing based on that, since to some degree this is just a matter of structuring content, and not comprehensivity (well-researchedness...) I find is strange that we (I...) could find room to have a section on Jewish POWs in the articles on Polish POWs, but that cannot be done here. IMHO having a section dedicated to discussion of Soviet Jewish POWs would be a good idea and due, and supported by RS. This topic has been covered in dedicated academic articles and likely needs its own subarticle. In addition to Krakowski: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the Polish POWs who were targeted by "atrocities", a large percentage were Jewish so it makes sense that the other article would lend significant coverage to it. Of the Soviet POWs that were mistreated, only a tiny percentage were Jewish. The subject is already adequately covered in the "selective killings" section. It may be a notable subject for its own article, as are other subjects related to this one, such as Soviet prisoners of war in Nazi concentration camps (there is an entire book on this)... (t · c) buidhe 03:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PPPS. " there is no reliable source that connects the added content to the issue of Soviet prisoners of war". This is not correct. First, I did not add the mention of Polish POWs; I just added a clarification and a blue link to the content already present there, added presumably by Buidhe and cited to a source that makes exactly this connection (Gerlach 2016:165). That source states “The treatment and death rates of Polish and Soviet POW differed in the extreme, although in ‘racial’ terms there was not much of a difference between them"; and our article stated that "Polish prisoners of war were considered racially similar to Soviet prisoners, but their conditions differed greatly and death rate was an order of magnitude lower". All that was added was a precise estimate (similar to the precise estimate already present in the article for Italian POWs) and a short sentence (~15 words) mentioning that Germans also committed atrocities against Polish POWs and linking to a dedicated article; that sentence contains a further estimate of Polish fatalities, serving to clarify and reinforce the previously imprecise (but roughly correct) claim of "magnitudes". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2-3 percent figure is already in Gerlach and if you think including it is so important, I could be persuaded on that. I just don't find the added content about Polish prisoners helpful or informative. War crimes were also committed against some Allied prisoners of different nationalities (US, UK, France, etc.), but the overall point that these were exceptions continues to to be true. I also think it is misleading to include this sentence about Polish prisoners but not cover other Allied nationalities, as it might lead the reader to conclude that more atrocities were committed against Polish prisoners when it was not necessarily the case. Indeed, after Soviet and Italian prisoners, it was not Poles but Yugoslav nationals who faced the worst treatment and highest death rates. Yet another reason not to shoehorn in content about Poland. (t · c) buidhe 03:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As per discussion on talk, I've rewritten the sentence to remove the focus on Polish POWs. It now refers to Allied POWs. I fully agree that the magnitude of crimes and treatment of Soviet POWs was different; but I think we need to briefly mention that (as you did) and link to other related articles which contain detailed information. I'd support adding information that Yugoslav nationals were the third group instead, it seems relevant - do we have any article covering their situation that we could link to? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the issue above (about Polish POWs) is hopefully being resolved through discussions on talk (and the article is stable), I remain concerned about whether this article is comprehensive. As I noted above, the legacy section is rather short. I have added a sentence and ref, as well as a link, to Soviet repressions against former prisoners of war (the title is not very clear - this is about Soviet repressions against the Soviet survivors of German camps, i.e. the very group discussed here), a highly relevant topic that was totally absent (despite one sentence of the legacy covering a related debate in the later years). The mentioned topic of Soviet atrocities committed against prisoners of war during World War II is still just a generic see also at the end of the article, although a while ago Buidhe mentioned that "it could be linked from the text". A week has passed since, and no link from the text to this has been made (is there even a relevant part of the text?). I have noticed some sources discuss the relation between German and Soviet treatments of POWs; a very good source is [9] (a paper about comparative treatment of POWs in WW2, including the ones discussed here). It mentions a number of interesting facts that seem to be absent from our article, such as how Red Cross and other organizations were denied entry to German and Soviet camps for their respective prisoners, and how information about large numbers of prisoners in those countries were suppressed by those who feared that this may lead to more humane treatment due the fear of revenge. Another interesting fact mentioned by MacKenzie (but not in our article) is that Canaris argued for more humane treatment of Russian POWs (using the same logic), to no avail. IMHO the topic of how German treatment of Soviet POWs was on some level similar, and on others, different, to the Soviet treatment of German POWs should merit its own paragraph. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the topic of how German treatment of Soviet POWs was on some level similar, and on others, different, to the Soviet treatment of German POWs should merit its own paragraph: I would strongly disagree here. When we're talking about atrocities, crimes against humanity etc, such comparisons serve as whataboutism and have the effect of minimising or excusing the atrocity at hand. This article should be about its title: other, related topics, can be linked in See Also. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The literature, or at least some of it, discusses the relation of those topics. That merits more than just a see also. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Buidhe keeps edit warring, removing all changes by those she disagrees with, up to and including a see also section (that is needed for a GA; I believe a see also should be converted into a link in text for a FA). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I proposed another compromise version (this time with no link to Polish POWs, as a problematic sentence with racial comparison was removed after a discussion on talk, thank you @Dreamcatcher25). But links to the two other articles IMHO should be in article body (those two are Soviet repressions against former prisoners of war and Soviet atrocities committed against prisoners of war during World War II). Right now the link to the former has been removed even from see also. I started a new discussion on talk about it; everyone is welcome there. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist Btw, the article already cites: Edele, Mark (2016). "Take (No) Prisoners! The Red Army and German POWs, 1941–1943". The Journal of Modern History. 88 (2): 342–379. I'll note that Edele even has an entire section on comparisons, where he writes "there are thus both similarities and differences between the way the Red Army and the Wehrmacht treated their POWs". Comparing those two topics is hardly whataboutism, this is done in the reliable sources, and at length (for example, one of the pertinent dimensions is to what degree the brutal treatment of POWs on the Eastern front was because of the concept of revenge). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wtfiv

[edit]

It's good to see an article on an this: As you mentioned, western coverage of the suffering and atrocities that Russian soldiers suffered at the hands of the Nazi regimes seems sparse. This carefully written article fills that gap.

You've been going through a rigorous review process already, but I wanted to provide suggestions too, waiting until my Featured Article Candidate had cleared. Most of my comments and observations are structural and stylistic as much of the content has been addressed.

Note: I've provided alternate examples illustrating the points I made on the this talk page. They're not meant as suggested rewrites, but just samples that hopefully clarify the points made in the review below.

Background
[edit]
  • Paragraph 1
    • Consider changing to terrorize to "terrorizing" to stay parallel with preceding gerund "looting".
  • Paragraph 2
    • Consider putting The vast majority...invasion in the first paragraph, which is about the resources and effort dedicated to the war. Maybe a clause at the end of the first sentence "..., devoting the vast majority of their military manpower and materiel." This would keep focus of the second paragraph on the ideology.
      • Then begin something like "The invasion was carried out....
    • Is the "with" in with Ukranians needed? The sentence is a list, the other elements following the commas don't use a preposition. Perhaps reword colon followed by list: "ranked according to a racial hierarchy: Soviet Germans...at the top, Ukrainians in the middle, Russians toward...lowest." This also has the advantage that it doesn't lead to an initial misreading(quickly corrected) that Soviet Germans, Balts and Muslims are leading the categorization effort.
  • Trying to separate the ideological from the pragmatic decisions would create the false impression that some were ideologically motivated while others were pragmatic. For example, the military decision to invade the Soviet union was heavily based on anti communist ideological factors. The decision to shoot Jews and communists was because of the belief that this would curb resistance to the invasion. That said, these paragraphs were separated for length reasons, there may be a better way to organize them. (t · c) buidhe 18:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggested an alternative minor edit of these three paragraphs that keeps all the ideas and paragraphing but thematically organizes them, but addresses the points made. It doesn't remove any of the points nor include major rewrites, except the racial hierarchy sentence, was slightly modified. (If you think it is an improvement, I kept the citations in place to make using it easier with a cut and paste. Of course, if you like the original organization better, that works too. The changes are fairly minor.) Wtfiv (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 3
    • This paragraph is about food supply. Consider moving ...suspicion of Jews...defeat to Paragraph 2, as that is the ideology paragraph. It seems an edited version of this would go well before The Nazis believed...conspiracy. This would put the two aspects: The Jews being blamed for German defeat and the perception of a Jewish concpiracy together as an ideological whole, with its focuse on race prejudice.
    • Would making the second half of the first sentence in para 3 and recognition of the need..., somewhat modified, be a better start for paragraph 3, as the focus of this paragraph is control of the food supply.
  • Side by side of current and alternative example for all three paragraphs provided here. (All three provided to illustrate that suggested changes are interlinked across paragraphs.)
    The way you reworked it comes together. In particular, think the new order you created for the paragraph works well to emphasize the article's point. The way you put the ending provides the rationale for seeing what is coming in the following sections as an atrocity. Wtfiv (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  • Paragraph 1
    • The last sentence states that there was controversy about the treatment of prisoners, but only Moltke favored the law (assuming the law refers both to the Hague and Geneva conventions?) If there was no other advocate for following the law, it's unclear what other sources of controversy may be. It's particularly unclear because in the previous sentence, it stated that no one objected to a war of extermination. So a reader might see this: There was no objection, there was controversy, only Moltke- who favored the law- was the source of controversy. Consider rewording. My understanding is that the military went along with the policy, and it sounds like Moltke was the exception. But if something else is meant, I think it needs clarification.
  • Paragraph 2
    • Consider reworking this paragraph a bit. Current order seems to mix issues: .(a) Controversy- logistics vs. ideology. (b) little planning by Germans and many prisoners captured, (c) less captured than expected (d) Still disagreement on controversy, (e) treatment of prisoners in France 40 cited that its not just logistics.
    • Suggested order: (a) Controversy- logistics vs. ideology. (b) evidence against it being just logistics- intentional lack of planning for prisoners, less than expected captured, ability to care for France 40 prisoners. (d) Sums to evidence in favor of ideology. Here's more details.
      • Consider reworking to put the ideas of two sentences Anti-Bolshevisim, antisemitism...labor and There is still disagreement...labor reserve together, as they are addressing the lead point of this paragraph. The details on planning and number of prisoners would seem to go better as they are addressing the controversy.
      • Related to the previous point. The last sentence in Paragraph 3 of Background implies that the overall starvation was due to the German policy on food supplies. It seems the paragraph should open with food supply or logistics, as it has been established in the narrative. Consider something like. "The regime's demands for food...contributed to the mass death of prisoners, but anti-Bolshevisim...are often cited as the main reason."
      • Consider ending the paragraph with the marshalled evidence- lack of planning, less prisoners, treatment of Western European prisoners- and an overall conclusion for ideological evidence.
      • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.
      • (Minor suggestion) Does Kay's name have to intrude in the narrative here? Aren't there more than one historian who state that supply and logistics cannot explain the mass deaths that could be cited. Three lines of evidence are given.
        • I definitely do not think this can be said in wiki voice, because there are others (especially Hartmann) who argue that the logistical situation was fundamentally different due to the lack of railways, roads and other infrastructure in the Soviet Union. (t · c) buidhe 13:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Sounds good. (Read Hartmann's arguments.) Thanks for the reply to my minor comment, which was more of an indirect query. Wtfiv (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Minor suggestion) Consider deleting military setbacks. The original numbers were based on optimistic planning, which rarely bears out. Many prisoners, such as at Kiev, were captured opportunistically in situations not initially anticipated in the first plans.
    • (Comment only) I see why security and labor needs are mentioned here, but it is a bit awkward because these concepts were not introduced early and just pop up here. They are addressed later, but their introduction assumes a reader is already aware of German labor needs and partisan security issues. I'm not sure much can be done about this.
Capture
[edit]
  • Paragraph 1
    • Consider reorganizing paragraph.
      • Currently it is organized as such: (a) high ratio of capture in 1941 that declines but remains lower than German, (b) Russians capture in encirclement, (c) Number of soviet soldiers decline after 1941. This starts by comparing 1941 capture rates, then describes overall capture rates with caveat that they declined, then gives way they were captured, then repeats that rates fell after 1941. Combining would merge points about decline, starting with 1941 and then explaining the change in capture rates later in the war.
      • Consider: starting (a) By mid-December 1941...surrounded, (b) "Three or four Soviet...killed" as the encirclements explain the high capture rate, (c) Ratio declines after the Battle of Moscow, but (d) remains higher than the German side.
      • (Minor comment) Consider reducing mention of 1941 in the paragraph, where it show up three times.
      • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.
  • Paragraph 2
    • Consider deleting the sentence The behavior of Soviet soldiers...defect. Does this tell us something unique about Soviet soldiers? Isn't this true for soldiers in any army anywhere? If this is deleted, consider beginning the following sentence with "Soviet soldiers opposition to their government...defections., which"
  • Paragraph 3
    • Consider reorganizing paragraph
      • Currently two sentences of front-line troops (also whose troops need mentioned, the focus has been on Soviets for this section.) are separated by interlude on camps: (a) Soviets captured by frontline (b) sent to collection point (c) transit camp (d) transit camp closed (e) permanent camp (f) frontline takes their clothes, (g) wounded sometimes got care.
      • Consider starting: "Soviet soldiers in encirclements were usually captured by Axis front-line troops, who took them to a collection point. Sometimes, the prisoners were stripped of their winter clothing..." This would result in (a) Capture by frontline troops (b) Discussion of collection point to transit camp and permanent camp. (c) treatment of the wounded and sick.
    • (Minor comment) Consider rewording final sentence. "Most often" already implies "sometime", so why not just state: "Most often wounded and sick Red Army soldiers did not receive medical care."

Summary executions

  • Paragraph 1
    • Consider moving the final sentence The German military...points right after first sentence. The first sentence gives numbers, this sentence qualifies those numbers, as they weren't recorded. It also allows the paragraph to end with the idea that the shootings escalated violence.
  • Paragraph 2
    • On the first read, I found this paragraph a bit confusing.
      • Current structure: (a) Germans order encircled, captured Soviets to turn themselves in. (b) Prisoners not taken in these circumstance (c) Some soviet soldiers executed as partisans. (d) Some Soviet soldiers evade capture. This structure feels like it is almost contradicting itself because it deals with two issues, prisoners ordered to turn themselves in and soldiers evading capture. It can be read that the German orders weren't successful as few turned themselves in, yet soldiers were shot as partisans, some evaded capture even though in the paragraph they aren't being captured by asked to turn themselves in.
      • Consider how this rearrangement sounds: (a) Soldiers shot as partisans. (b) Soldiers ordered to turn themselves in. (c) Few did.
      • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.
        • (a) Consider a variation of last sentence as first, topic sentence: "Thousands or ten of thousands ...as partisans"
        • (b) Followed by a merge of the last clause of sentence two with sentence one: "To prevent the growth...movement, the Supreme Command...(OKH)...ordered Red Army soldiers overtaken to present themselves...execution.".
        • (c) The third sentence Despite the order...circumstances strikes me as confusing. "Despite the order" implies few soldiers turned themselves in, "More often than not" implies soldiers were were more likely to turn themselves in, "circumstances" is plural, but the situation- being overtaken- is singular, prisoners is the subject-but the actual subject is bypassed soldiers who were ordered to become prisoners, but usually refused. Consider reworking this. Here's one suggestion: merging this with the last clause of the last sentence to something like: Despite this order, few soldiers turned themselves in; some evaded capture and returned to their families."
  • Paragraph 3
    • consider deleting as expected, isn't it implied? Remove the comma after expected as the following is not an independent clause.
    • Consider editing the section of female combatants to make it a bit clearer and to follow more seamlessly.
      • At first read, the lead "although" on the sentence on female soldiers initially reads as a qualification of the previous point on commissars, but it's a new topic.
      • Here's where the section may need clarity. It seems to read like this: (a) OKH says they defy gender expectation so treat them as prisoners of war. (b)other orders- whose?- called for them to be shot on sight. (c) Some units did not execute female combatants, but most died. Here's the issue I see: Most units shouldn't have based on the OKH directive, but some may have taken their own initiative unless "other orders" came from a higher level than OKH. This needs clarification.
      • (in Germany not needed, as there were camps in other countries like Poland).
      • Here's a possible suggestion addressing these points: "The OKH ordered female combatants in the Soviet army be treated as prisoners of war; but these female soldiers, who defied German gender expectations, were often shot on sight. few survived to reach prisoner-of-war camps."
Prisoner-of-war-camps
[edit]

Paragraph 1- No comments

Death marches

  • Paragraph 1
    • Consider reordering structure.
      • Current structure: (a) no rail cars (b) death marches, being shot and escaping (c) rail transport in open cattle wagons (d) additional death marches (e) total killed.
      • Here are the issues I see: The paragraph starts assuming the reader knows the topic and talks about train transport not being usually available, the marches, then back to train transport using open cattle cars when earlier it said train transport usually wasn't done, then it returns to death marches.
      • Consider (a) Start with description of the death marches, which is the topic. Maybe mention there were additional ones (b) Note that rail transportation wasn't usually available but when it was it was in open cattle cars that killed 20%. (c) total killed.
      • consider deleting typically on foot...areas, as "death march" implies "on foot"
      • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.

Housing conditions

  • Paragraph 1
    • Consider reordering structure for clarity.
      • Here's the current structure I see: (a) lack of facilities and starvation (b) Germans systematically roll out housing (c) through winter, soldiers in open, unheated rooms, or burrows (c) poor housing and cold cause mass deaths (d) mass death eases situation. The idea that housing and barracks were systematically rolled out implies to the reader that housing was well done, but this is then contradicted in the following sentences that show it is inadequate.
      • Suggested reordering. (a) lack of facilities and starvation (b) Poor housing and cold cause of mass death: through winter, soldiers in open, unheated rooms, or burrows (d) Germans systematically roll out housing housing, but inadequate (e) math death eases situation. (f) death toll. This would start with the statements of the causes and the experience of Russian soldiers, then address the inadequacy of the German response that was only solved by mass death.
      • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.
  • Paragraph 2
    • one minor suggestion: consider replacing "the" with "recaptured" in escape, the prisoners...camp as the previous sentence refers to prisoners that successfully made it to Switzerland.

Hunger and mass deaths

  • No comments

Release

  • No comments

Selective killings

  • Paragraph 1- No comments
  • Paragraph 2
    • Consider this reordering. Follow Those unable...die. with Disabled soldiers...approached. End with "Sometimes mass executions were conducted without a clear rationale." This has the strength of putting "unable to work" and "disabled" together, allowing unstated method of execution to be more easily inferred from the preceding "unable". It also ends the paragraph on the idea that many of the mass executions were senseless.
  • Paragraph 3
    • Consider swapping the order of these sentences: As the war progressed...executions and After March 1944...escape this would put the Mauthausen killing next to the other camp systems, and make the issue of curtailment a kind of final statement before the tally statement.
    • Consider rewording After March 1944...escape. If the prisoners escaped, how were they killed? If they escaped, what does an attempted escape have to do with them. So based on context, I'd suggest one of the two rewordings: "Around 5,000 Soviet officers and non-commissioned officers recaptured after an attempted mass escape in March 1944 were killed at Mauthausen." or "Around 5,000 Soviet officers and non-commissioned officers implicated in a mass escape attempt in March 1944 were killed at Mauthausen.", depending on whether only the escapees were killed or everyone suspected of taking part in the escape.
Auxiliaries in German service
[edit]
  • No comments
Forced Labor
[edit]

In the Soviet Union

  • Paragraph 1
    • Consider detaching and others died from the sentence Many prisoners ran away... and shifting it to the next sentence by semi-colon or colon to the following sentence, which illustrates the modes of death of forced-laborers.

Transfer to Nazi concentration camps

No comment

Deportation elsewhere

  • Paragraph 1- No comment
  • Paragraph 2
    • Consider deleting the "any" from any significant improvement. Then consider shortening Not all prisoners....disease to "Prisoners remained vulnerable to malnutrition and disease." The reason for these suggestions is as mentioned, real improvement is politically impossible. Thus, there's no reason to talk about benefits, which according to the previous sentence were nil.
    • (Comment) The clause at the end of the last sentence where many died seems to raise unneeded questions. Norway and the Channel Islands were relatively low conflict zones. Did they die by starvation working at these locations, were they executed by the Germans, the population, or Allied occupation forces? Maybe its best to just remove the clause?
Public perception
[edit]
  • Paragraph 1
    • Consider moving According to Secrity Service...reason. right after the first paragraph. The sentence ends for this reason", but the preceding sentence mentions Holocaust ignorance and the murder of prisoners first. Moving the sentence would make the paragraph progression clearer: (a) Soviets portrayed as monsters, (b) Many Germans wanted them killed because of this (c) Russians were being murdered early on.
    • Can the sentence Although many Germans claimed ignorance...deported be reworked? It seems out of context here. I do think a link to the German alleged ignorance of the Holocaust is important to put in this article, it doesn't seem to go here. The topic of the paragraph is the dehumanization and approved destruction of Soviet prisoners.
    • This sentence begins with mention of Holocaust denial, which is not a topic here, and follows up with the claim that many Soviet prisoners died before German Jews had been deported. This sentence would be more contextually appropriate if it were the last in the paragraph, and the clause Although...war, is deleted.
    • (Additional comment) If the above suggestion makes sense. I'm not sure I'd want to lose the Claimed German ignorance of the holocaust link. Could it go elsewhere in the article, or reworked so that it makes more contextual sense?
      • (later thought- brainstorming) Perhaps a final sentence to the effect that "Just as much of the German population claimed ignorance of the holocaust, they also claimed to be unaware of the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war." would work? Though something like this would need a citation.
  • Paragraph 2
    • This is fine as is, but consider rewording the first sentence to begin "Soviet propaganda ...as early as July 1941." This would make a cleaner contrast with the structure of the proceeding paragraph: Nazi propaganda and Soviet propaganda both being their own initial topic. As written, the initial flow, makes the reader think they are reading a continuation of the previous paragraph until they arrive at "Soviet propaganda" at the end.
End of the war
[edit]
  • Paragraph 1
    • Maybe the redundancy is a good thing in an article of this length, but weren't the deaths caused by late death marches already covered in Death marches? Could the information be consolidated? (Personally, I think removing the late death marches from Death marches and leaving it here.
  • Paragraphs 2, 3, & 4- No comments
Death toll
[edit]

No comments

  • (observation) Deaths in Norway is mentioned here where it seems to make more sense than in the end of forced labor, which put Norway together with the Channel islands. This seems to support that the clause where many died at the very end of Force labor isn't needed.
Legacy
[edit]

No comments

I'm done for now. This article represents an incredible amount of work. After having combed through this article, I very much appreciate the service it is doing in raising the awareness of further atrocities during WWII. Wtfiv (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, what's the state of play re responding to wtfiv's comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am still trying to find time to do the needed prose improvement (t · c) buidhe 17:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Biruitorul

[edit]

From what I can see, this is a great article on a neglected topic. Nice variety of recent, quality sources, good use of images, clear layout. If I see any issues as I continue to work through the text, I will note them, but at a first pass, this looks like a worthy FAC candidate. — Biruitorul Talk 06:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One afterthought, given an ongoing controversy: given its contextual relevance, I’d like to see a brief mention of German atrocities committed against Polish prisoners of war retained here. — Biruitorul Talk 07:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Given the changes that have occurred during this FAC, the pending discussions on the talk page, and that discussion has stalled here, it's come time to archive this.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/German_atrocities_committed_against_Soviet_prisoners_of_war/archive1&oldid=1257049771"