Talk:World War II casualties/Archives/2009/November

Guam
Guam is inaccurately listed as being part of the Japanese South Pacific mandate when in fact it has been administered by the U.S. since 1898. I'm not sure if it should be separate or if it should be noted under U.S. casualties. 69.133.126.117 (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

African American Casualties
The number of African Americans killed seems too low despite the citation. Only 708 combat deaths are listed despite the fact that the 92nd colored infantry division was engaged in Italy for several years. I would appreciate it if someone could verify this number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.152.99 (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you provide casualty figures from a reliable source that can be verified that will update the figure in Clodfelter's book?--Woogie10w (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Bahamas casualties
According to the book "Islanders in the Stream" by Michael Craton and Gail Saunders, 15 Bahamian servicemen were killed in WWII.

Precision of the numbers
Apart from the mistake in the Russian civilian deaths, where the first number is greater than the second (How is this handled when taking the sums? Could lead to some error in the final range.), I wonder about the strange precision of some numbers. For example, the Russian civilian deaths are given as 12,254,000 to 14,154,000. What's the point of stating any digit after the millions? There is an overall uncertainty of 2 million and in these numbers one bothers to be precise down to the thousands. Another strange entry is that of the Dutch West Indies: 3,030,000 to 4,030,000. I believe that it has been computed by adding some estimate of 3-4 million to a more precisely known number of 30,000. What's the point in such a thing? The number is not known more precisely than millions, so don't state any number after the digit for the millions. Do the same for the totals. Even though these are ranges, their limits are not known more precisely than in the millions.