We'd need an alternative Wikipedia for WW2-articles

[Whodunnit?]

I used to be a contributor to Wikipedia since it's very first days, I never included "controversial" info, just information that you either can undeniably prove or that's from mainstream sources. And in the past this wasn't a problem.

Now in recent years the WW2 articles have changed dramatically. Now why?
Right here:

https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans- ... wikipedia/

One Woman’s Mission to Rewrite Nazi History on Wikipedia

Ksenia Coffman’s fellow editors have called her a vandal and a McCarthyist. She just wants them to stop glorifying fascists—and start citing better sources

Coffman can’t recall exactly when her concern set in. Maybe it was when she read the article about the SS, the Nazi Party’s paramilitary, which included images that felt to her like glamour shots—action-man officers admiring maps, going on parade, all sorts of “very visually disturbing” stuff. Or maybe it was when she clicked through some of the pages about German tank gunners, flying aces, and medal winners. There were hundreds of them, and the men’s impressive kill counts and youthful derring

Ok, this is what's going on. This yenta has a problem with "Nazi kill counts" and anything which makes the "Nazis" look good. Why? Well one, jews are not rational people. Two: they know that a lot of "Nazis" and "Holocaust deniers" started as people who were just interested in history, they were impressed by the Wehrmacht, they started admiring them, and at some point they stumbled on the "wrong" information and/or asked themselves "I wonder what they were fighting for" - and boom, you have someone who doesn't consider the Gemans in WW2 demons.

Now it's not just this one woman. There are a lot of them, a lot of mentally ill antifas, that as of late have undermined internet communities like Axis Forum, they have undermined places like Quora, Youtube, and of course Wikipedia. They delete or hide the truth, post lies and prevent you from correcting them.

On Wikipedia, they create the typical WW2 schizophrenia that you get the more you research WW2 topic. Conflicting info and so on. And what I have noticed is that they f* around with the kill counts. In the box, they usually take the lowest estimate for allied military losses, the highest for allied civilian casualties, and the highest for German military losses and lowest for German civilian deaths. But then, when you read the article, very far down, you will find different estimates.


When you will look up the German military casualties, it features the "study" by Rüdiger Overmans: 5,318,000, of these all but 1,1 million POW deaths in the USSR, so 4,2 million battlefield deaths. Deep in the article they hid that there once was a guy called Baque who claimed to have evidence that 1 million German soldiers died in allied POW camps, and that until they pretty much all historians plus German state insitutes estimates the wartime battle deaths at 3,2 - 3,5 million. Overmans found out that the "missing million" just died on the battlefield, everybody was wrong. I read his study, and it's just cherry picked nonsense. Oh and btw, they DON'T mention that Overmans wrote this study as a reaction to Baque for the book "Eisenhower and the German POWs", published by the Eisenhower Institute in New Orleans.

Then two examples about the "Battle of France":

The box shows you that 49,000 Wehrmacht soldiers were killed and 73,000 allied soldiers.

But then deep down you will find

German casualties are hard to determine but commonly accepted figures are: 27,074 killed, 111,034 wounded and 18,384 missing.[5][6][7] German deaths may have been as high as 45,000 men, due to non-combat causes, such as death from wounds and missing who were later listed as dead.[5]

Wait a minute - as high as 45,000 if you include everybody who died of non-combat causes? The box says 49,000. What is the source for that number? Oh: a book called "The Blitzkrieg Myth" by a German historian. The title alone shows you that he wanted to "dispell a myth" instead of just doing objective research.
The french article takes the cake, though: 63 682 dead! The french just lost 58 829. They also shot down three times as many aircraft. Yet they surrendered. I wonder why, the war was going very well for them.

Now the allied losses.

According to the French Defence Historical Service, 85,310 French military personnel were killed (including 5,400 Maghrebis); 12,000 were reported missing, 120,000 were wounded and 1,540,000 prisoners (including 67,400 Maghrebis) were taken.[237] Some recent French research indicates that the number of killed was between 55,000 and 85,000, a statement of the French Defence Historical Service tending to the lower end

Of course! That's what I'm saying! For the allies, it's always the lower end, for the Germans always the higher + several just made up thousands.

Of the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties it says: 1939–40 Battle of France 92,000, which probably is the correct number.



Then in the article about the "Legion of French Volunteers Against Bolshevism":

France declared war on Nazi Germany in September 1939 at the same time as the United Kingdom. It was invaded and occupied by German forces after a disastrous military campaign in May and June 1940 in which 600,000 civilians and soldiers were killed

WHAT?????? 600,000 ???????????????????????? This is a completely fictional number. They pretend like Germany was carpet bombing the fuck out of France.

You CAN edit the articles, and even if your reason is that there is different info deeper down in the massive wall of text, or another wikipedia article, they will immediately reverse it without giving you a reason.

They know that most people just do a quick "look up", and they don't read the entire article. And thusfar their tactic is to prominently feature the bullshit that they think they need to fight naziism, and hide more accurate info deep down in the massive walls of texts.


Now you might say that you don't care, it's not important. You are wrong. It is. In my opinion, the main problem with the Holocaust-religion is that it makes philosophy, art and, as we can currently see, reasonable politics impossible.

This fan-fiction makes people dumber. It is Lord of the Rings with machine guns. They teach people that shit like Lord of the Rings really happened, the Orcs were just called Germans and they had machine guns. If the way you understand the world is rooted in Lord of the Rings-shit, you can not analyse the world realistically. Everything will have to fit to your believe that Lord of the Rings-shit happened, that it could happen again, and the main goal has to be to prevent that at all costs. And this will lead us into a new dark age.

They will eventually erradicate all info that contradicts them and continue to publish fictional "research", and eventually nothing will make sense anymore and everything will be a lie. And behind it are irrational and often mentally ill people who think they have to do this to prevent the respawning of Sauron aka Hitler.
Social media has enabled mentally ill people to spread their illness on society. They will eventually turn history into a lie that will make all previous historical lies look like slight exaggerations, because as long as somebody likes anything German, they can't stop. The fact that millions of people listen to "Erika" on youtube makes them afraid of getting gassed.

This has to be fought, just for the sake of wanting to live in a world that makes sense, where the truth is honored, a world where nobody is forced to share these people's mental illness.
So I am calling for an alternative Wikipedia just for WW2 articles. Not even based on "controversial historians", but just on the things that were in the history books before these nutjobs hijacked history.

Is it possible to somehow make this happen?

[Eesti_mees]

Have you considered using Metapedia?
https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

[Hektor]

You'd need sources that are truly reliable first. But then you already deal with the bias in the historiography guild. And that's a big issue. There were rather sober historians on WW2 in the decades after WW2... They were educated prior to that era... Those in the field today are virtually all educated decades after WW2 and already got the bias with the mother's milk.

[TLSMS93]

Wikipedia is so weird that it puts 6 million Poles killed during the war and 6 million Jews in the same cake, only 3 million would be Polish Jews but they don't make that distinction, so it looks like Germany exterminated 12 million people only from two ethnic groups instead of 3 million from each group. It was absurd to claim that more Germans were killed by persecution than by Allied bombers. The Germans thought they had enough of an India to go around chasing their own citizens without suffering the consequences of a lack of manpower. Apart from the other absurdity that they try to justify the ethnic cleansing in Central and Eastern Europe against the Germans for having done the same with other peoples and nations. That is, they recognize genocide, but it would be necessary and justifiable genocide. And finally the USSR death estimate of 26.6 million they cite a single historian and Russian by the way, always the source is the one with the greatest disparity upwards in casualties.

I'm in favor of an alternative wikipedia as long as it doesn't fall into the trap of being a partial source like wikipedia, it can't be another metapedia in which it can be accused of having an alternative and revisionist bias, it has to be something impartial so that it doesn't have excuses than to accuse. Problem is, who will finance this work? Who would be willing to become someone persona non grata?

[Otium]

Wait a minute - as high as 45,000 if you include everybody who died of non-combat causes? The box says 49,000. What is the source for that number? Oh: a book called "The Blitzkrieg Myth" by a German historian. The title alone shows you that he wanted to "dispell a myth" instead of just doing objective research.

In that book, the author puts the French losses much higher than the ones you mention:

In May–June of 1940, the German army recorded only about 49,000 killed in action and missing. Those figures came to 120,000 for the French army,7,500 for the Belgian army, and 3,000 for the Dutch army. The British (army and air force) lost about 5,000 killed in action, and their total losses (including prisoners of war and wounded) were reported to be about 70,000.

Karl-Heinz Frieser, The Blitzkrieg Legend: The 1940 Campaign in the West (Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 2012). End of Chapter 9.

So that's something.

[Hektor]

....
I'm in favor of an alternative wikipedia as long as it doesn't fall into the trap of being a partial source like wikipedia, it can't be another metapedia in which it can be accused of having an alternative and revisionist bias, it has to be something impartial so that it doesn't have excuses than to accuse. Problem is, who will finance this work? Who would be willing to become someone persona non grata?

That's one question that needs to be answered. But it doesn't stop there. Who will run the project? Who will be in charge and responsible? Who will do the work, how will they be paid and how will there be dealt with issues?

It's always easy to come up with some 'great idea', but it also needs to be realized, financed, controlled and protected in some way. So there is a strategic question to begin with. Now in the past, long ago, one could rely on academia for this... But things have changed there. Other groups control this now and the culture has also changed there. Those calling the shots there are staunch believers in the narrative about WW2 and they want it to be continued to be portrayed in the way they did over the past 80 years.

[Whodunnit?]

And finally the USSR death estimate of 26.6 million they cite a single historian and Russian by the way, always the source is the one with the greatest disparity upwards in casualties.

. And finally the USSR death estimate of 26.6 million they cite a single historian and Russian by the way, always the source is the one with the greatest disparity upwards in casualties.

Yes. One of the things that annoy me about Wikipedia is the conflicting numbers and that if you read the articles, they will not give you clarity, but they will confuse you. Different articles about the same topics will give you totally different informations. Apparently nobody there checks if the various connected pages give the readers a congruent narrative.

The Russian casualties are apparently impossible to estimate.
If you just do a quick look-up, you will find the estimates by Krivosheev, 8,660,000 military dead. You will also find that other historians criticise these numbers and put them at 11,400,000. These are the numbers that are also on the page that most people look up when they want to know how many military dead the various countries had: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Now deep down in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War ... viet_Union you'll find:

Russian Military Archives database

An alternative method is to determine losses from the Russian Military Archives database of individual war dead. S. A. Il'Enkov, an official at the Russian Military Archives, maintained that the "complex military situation at the front did not always allow for the conduct of a full accounting of losses, especially in the first years of the war" [...] He concluded by stating, "We established the number of irreplaceable losses of our Armed Forces at the time of the Great Patriotic War of about 13,850,000.[9]

Critics
Critics of the official figures by the Russian Ministry of Defense base their arguments on self analyses of documents in the Soviet archives and demographic models of the Soviet population during the Stalin era.

On 14 February 2017 at a hearing of the Russian State Duma a presentation by legislator Nikolai Zemtsov, a member of the non-governmental organization Immortal Regiment of Russia, maintained that documents of the now defunct Soviet Gosplan indicated that Soviet war dead were almost 42 million (19 million military and 23 million civilians).[13][16]

Viktor Zemskov [...] maintains that military dead numbered 11.5 million, including nearly 4 million POWs.

Mark Solonin maintains that Krivosheev covered up casualties that were three to four times greater than Germany's. Solonin claimed that Russian official sources that list deaths of 13.7 million civilians due to the German occupation include victims of Stalinist repression. Solonin estimates total losses as somewhat under 20 million. Military dead numbered at least 10.7 million,[c] excluding 2.18 million soldiers who are unaccounted for, half of whom he assumed died. He claimed that 6–9 million Soviets fell to Stalin's repressions, although in contemporary Russian official sources they are included with civilian war dead.[78]

In 2017, the Russian historian Igor Ivlev put Soviet war dead at 42 million people (19.4 million military and 22.6 million civilians). According to Ivlev, Soviet State Planning Committee documents put the Soviet population at 205 million in June 1941 and 169.8 million for June 1945. Taking into account the 17.6 million births and 10.3 million natural deaths, leaving almost 42 million in war-related losses according to his research. [...] Ivlev has published a summary of his arguments on the Russian website Demoscope Weekly. According to Ivlev's calculations based on the number of Soviet Communist party and Komsomol members conscripted, military dead and missing were 17.8 million.[81]

In 1996, Boris Sokolov published a study that estimated total war dead at 43.3 million including 26.4 million in the military. Sokolov's calculations claimed that official population figures in 1941 were understated by 12.7 million and the population in 1946 overstated by 4.0 million, yielding 16.7 million additional war dead, bringing the total to 43.3 million.[15]

V. E. Korol estimated overall Soviet war dead at 46 million including military dead of 23 million. He claimed that the official figure of 8.7 million military dead was "groundless", based on battle accounts from across the Eastern Front. Korol held that the official figures of Krivosheev were an attempt to cover up the disregard for human life by the military leaders under Stalin.

In 1990, General I. A. Gerasimov published information from the Russian Military Archives database that put losses at 16.2 million enlisted men and 1.2 million officers. Korol also cited historian-archivist Iu. Geller who put losses at 46 million, including military dead of 23 million.[86]

A.N. Mertsalov's estimate of 14 million military dead based on documents in the Russian Military Archives.[14][87]

A compilation made in March 2008 of the individuals listed in the card files put total dead and missing at 14,241,000 (13,271,269 enlisted men and 970,000 officers)[89]


Male war dead

Andreev, Darski and Karkova (ADK) put total losses at 26.6 million. The authors did not dispute Krivoshev's report of 8.7 million military dead. Their demographic study estimated the total war dead of 26.6 million included 20.0 million males and 6.6 million females. In mid-1941 the USSR hosted 8.3 million more females; by 1946 this gap had grown to 22.8 million, an increase of 13.5 million.[90]


Ok, you get it. The numbers of military and civilian deaths are highly politicizes and are of a high emotional value. If you've ever had a discussion with a Russian about their casualties, you might have noticed that there is some touchiness about whatever number they want to be true.

Oh, and btw, very important, also from this article:

Hypothetical population loss for children unborn due to the war– Some Russian writers have argued that war losses should also include the hypothetical population loss for children unborn due to the war; using this methodology total losses would be about 46 million.[88]

I found this argumentation several times when it came to the "civilian losses" in Eastern Europe. They also count those that weren't born because the war causes a drop in child births as "civilian war losses", and the layman reads this as "killed" or even "murdered" by Stahlhelm savages because of scary German words like "Lebensraum" and "Ubermensch".

One of the things that Russians apparently can't figure out is the number of Soviet citizens that were collaborators and after war probably were mostly killed. I suspect they are included in the number of POW deaths, because here you will also find large disparities. In Sanning you can read that in the soviet census of 1959 only 38,4% of the population that in the "Great Patriotic War" was of military age was male.

Now I thought about this project again and realized that it is probably not realizable. You'd need a large number of volunteers who are willing to spend a lot of time writing high quality articles, basically for free. And of course, Google won't show you this webpage, so the number of casual visitors will probably be low and you will just be preaching to the choir.

But maybe a research-project where those people who are interested can gain some clarity would be a good idea, so similar to Codoh, but about the war, not the Holocaust. Also no fanboy-ism. Just for clarity, info that wasn't manipulated by people like Mrs. Coffman.

[TLSMS93]

I was already aware of this method of estimating birth loss to include in Soviet loss statistics. Only they extrapolate this to Germany too? lol

Most serious historians settle for 8.5 million soldiers killed on the battlefields + 3.5 million Soviet prisoners killed in German captivity, the Soviets estimated 1.5 million prisoners killed, the rest would be considered civilians deported by the Germans for forced labor.

There are also some authors who refuse to accept that natural deaths and deaths from regions where no German soldier stepped on account of losses in the war, in this case the historian Viktor Zemskov considers that under German occupation 4.5 million civilians died either by fire crusader, anti-partisan executions and bombing such as the siege of Leningrad. In this case Germany would be responsible for 16.5 million deaths in the USSR, if there were 26.5 million deaths this is due to other battles in the war against other countries and the repression of Stalin's terror regime, it is known that 3 millions of Soviets died in regions that a German soldier never stepped on, i.e. under Stalin's jurisdiction.

[Whodunnit?]

I was already aware of this method of estimating birth loss to include in Soviet loss statistics. Only they extrapolate this to Germany too? lol

Most serious historians settle for 8.5 million soldiers killed on the battlefields + 3.5 million Soviet prisoners killed in German captivity, the Soviets estimated 1.5 million prisoners killed, the rest would be considered civilians deported by the Germans for forced labor.

There are also some authors who refuse to accept that natural deaths and deaths from regions where no German soldier stepped on account of losses in the war, in this case the historian Viktor Zemskov considers that under German occupation 4.5 million civilians died either by fire crusader, anti-partisan executions and bombing such as the siege of Leningrad. In this case Germany would be responsible for 16.5 million deaths in the USSR, if there were 26.5 million deaths this is due to other battles in the war against other countries and the repression of Stalin's terror regime, it is known that 3 millions of Soviets died in regions that a German soldier never stepped on, i.e. under Stalin's jurisdiction.

Well, Krivosheev, who calculated the 8,66 million number, reports that the number of dead POWs is only 1,283,000. The 3 million number supposedly includes civilian laborers. The people who bring up higher numbers of military losses don't make these numbers up. I don't speak Russian, but when the source is the "Russian Military Archive card-index" or the soviet central planning comitee GOSPLAN, and these sources go twice as high, then you reach a point where HistorySpeaks could ask "where specifically do [Revisionists] think the missing Russians went"? So what's up here? Are Russians too stupid to properly record or handle demographic data, or was it possible that millions of people just (statistically) disappeared in this vast country of the USSR?
But it is interesting that Krivosheev brings up evidence that the number of 3,5 million dead POWs can't be possible, because most POWs returned home. I just assume that those soviets that were killed as collaborators are also included in "German murder victims". According to German sources only 617,000 POWs died in captivity.

Nobody disputes the number of US, British, Belgian, Norwegian, Danish or Dutch war losses. It always the number of the German, the eastern europeans, and most recently the French ones that they mess around with. Everybody knows that "Historians" try to pull everything to pieces that Hitler did. They make retared claim like that the "Autobahns" were just made to drive tanks over it, or that the Blitzkrieg was a coincidence, or that it's a myth or whatever. A couple of years ago I watched a documentary made for the German state TV where they claimed that the Blitzkrieg was only made possible by giving all the soldiers Pervertin aka Crystal Meth. Supposedly the chocolate that the German soldiers had in their field rations, Chocacola, had crystal meth in it. For normies this makes sense, because that would be "doping", right? Like in the olympics, they could run faster or something. But for everybody who thinks critically about this it becomes obvious that this is nonsense. Meth wouldn't provide any significant advantage, and an army of meth would descent into chaos. There are people on the youtube who eat the original German MRE stuff. Their cocolate just contained caffeine. But "Nazi super-pills" but it was just the stuff white trash takes, that seems like a great smear campaign.
This documentary was one of the WTF-moments that made me realized that these court historians don't do serious research, but create state propaganda disguised as science.

[TLSMS93]

Problems with censuses have always existed, even in my country Brazil is going through this, they estimate many more people than the census can count so far, a country as vast as the USSR was, with remote and inhospitable regions, perhaps only the gulags were accounted for correctly. As for the sources used by the literature or the media, which are governments, they are highly suspect, even those in Germany, which in German victims always preferred the lowest numbers of deaths such as those in Dresden, while in the USSR there was an increase because they thought that if there was more deaths that means greater glory for having defeated the Axis more than other allied countries.

Yes, there was a History documentary talking about "Hitler's Illnesses", that he used various substances and they maintain that the defeats in the war did not affect him because he was doped, the documentary created a contradiction if in sustaining this he could be responsible for what he supposedly ordered to do if he was really doped or if Parkinson's disease could impair his reasoning or decision-making. In the end, everything is in the field of may be and may not be. Fact is the caffeine that helps people stay awake and the Wehrmacht hit France for 4 weeks without sleep, they just need to claim that this also helped to reach the doors of Moscow. Everything is a defamation, it wasn't efficiency or the German organization, it was a substance, there was no methamphetamine for the Holocaust to be possible, right? Lol