Hannibal Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 I was thinking about the losses that the USSR took in WW2 .I would like to think if the US had had to take losses at that level we would have continued to fight .But I cant see this country having taken 20 to 25 million dead and having contiued to fight . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sniperscope Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 differnt country, different way of thinking. differnt type of leader, and......we had the a bomb first. With those types of losses the US when have gone into a-bomb o matic mode. sniperscope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soliloquy Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 Fighting in Europe? I doubt that those kind of casualties would be acceptable. Fighting on our soil? It obviously didn't happen, but I think we would have borne those losses, just as the Soviets did. [This message has been edited by Soliloquy (edited 06-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchy Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 Absolutely not! With Marshall deciding that the US had to make due with 90 divisions (down from 100+) casualties were a big probelm! In late 1944, it was decided to send the regiments only of the 70th, 63rd and one other division as Task Forces to make up for holes in the line in N.E. France. These divisions did not have the benefit of Army maneuvers before being shipped out and were also stripped of personnel many times before being shipped overseas. Many soldiers barely completed basic training before they entered combat! Believe it or not, we barely made it (manpower speaking) in Europe and Japan! ------------------ Webmaster http://www.trailblazersww2.org http://www.vmfa251.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killmore Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 Again guys you are mixing army casualties with total casualties. The 25 million dead figure includes civilians killed by Naziz. And I believe that was over 10 million. Armies own casualties were not that bad. Think of German submariners - 80% of them died. Yet they still continued to fight. If you push the right buttons then people will fight to the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannibal Posted June 30, 2000 Author Share Posted June 30, 2000 I was talking about total dead not just military dead .I have seen tv shows and book talking about how tough it was during the war in the US with rationing and women having to work .Tough was Lenigrad being under seige for 3 year with a million dead .Cant imagine New York holding out for 3 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killmore Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 Only the first year there were civilians in Leningrad - after that it was mostly military and not much more. (My grand mother escaped from Leningrad in 1942 over the frozen Ladoga Lake) I believe that US people would be able to hold out too. You just have to have right propaganda machine. Besides a lot of Soviets knew that Germans were killing civilians and military alike. When you have no chance of survival under the enemy you fight harder. Bastogne did hold out. So did marines in Korea. US civil war was very bloody. I wonder how what % of population died compared to Soviet Unioin in WWII. Anyone can unswer that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 I think Soliloquay hit this one on the head. No, the US would have negotiated peace in Europe LONG before we got to those numbers. However if the Axis forces both invaded the US and our native soil were underfoot, then yeah, we're not really the surrendering type either. Think of the partisin actions in the US and Canada if they had somehow been able to invade us. I have always enjoyed reading alternative history books and stories on the subject. Anyone ever read SS-GB? Or Hitler Victorious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 I agree with those who say that the US and the USSR were fighting 2 different wars. You are more willing for casualties when defending your home soil from invasion than you are if you are defending others. Once the Soviets fought their way into Germany it was harder to justify the horrendous casualties it was recieving, even with their dominating state. However, there is a breaking point, as was seen in 1917! The USSR never reached this point, even though it suffered more, and lost more in 1941-45. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 Not a chance in hell. Only if the US was directly invaded would we be willing to suffer that level of casualities. It is one of the US's greatest weaknesses: unwillingness or inability to take heavy casualities. The best way to take on the US is politically and using the US's open society as a means of drumming opposition to any war effort. Giap was quite adept at doing this from what I understand. Operations were aimed not only to attack US troops but to also undermine political support in the domestic US. Nicely done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcusm Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 Btw is USA called motherland or fatherland? Marcus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by marcusm: Btw is USA called motherland or fatherland? Marcus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Land of the Free, home of the Brave. ------------------ The dead know only one thing - it is better to be alive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dNorwood Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killmore: I wonder how what % of population died compared to Soviet Unioin in WWII. Anyone can unswer that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I found some quick numbers: ~646,000 Union ~134,000 Confederate Total pop ~34,000,000 So just over 2% (Assuming the World Almanac is reliable) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soliloquy Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dNorwood: ~646,000 Union ~134,000 Confederate <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That can't be right. I believe that TOTAL casualties for BOTH the USA and CSA combined are in the neighborhood of 600,000. Casualties, not deaths. Heck, the CSA had nearly 30,000 casualties at Gettysburg alone. A less fuzzy answer from me will have to wait until I get home to my 'library'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soliloquy Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Soliloquy: the neighborhood of 600,000. Casualties, not deaths. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My bad. A quick web search indicated that the number (~600,000) was good, but it does indeed represent the death toll total for the war. Roughly 350,000 Union and 250,000 Confederate. And so the 2% figure is accurate as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 Marcusm In answer to your question, neither one of these terms is commonly used in the USA. My take on the reason why is that our national identity is as a nation of immigrants. Our patriotism is often based on the fact that we (or at least our recent ancestors) chose the land (so to speak). However, we were not born of it. Hence, it is not our motherland or fatherland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Clark Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Soliloquy: My bad. A quick web search indicated that the number (~600,000) was good, but it does indeed represent the death toll total for the war. Roughly 350,000 Union and 250,000 Confederate. And so the 2% figure is accurate as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Off the top of my head, those figures are somewhat correct. The total white population breaks down as follows (in millions): Union: 18.8 Border: 2.5 Confederacy: 5.4 Total: 26.7 Thus 600,000 casualties represent 2.2% of the white population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted June 30, 2000 Share Posted June 30, 2000 Hannibal- Also keep in mind that it's doubtful the U.S. would have suffered casualties at that rate - the Soviet forces were paralyzed and useless in the opening stages in large part because of Stalin's insane purges and the idiocies of centralized industry. Generally speaking their tactics didn't evolve that much either, another reason they continued to suffer such horrendous military losses. But NOBODY likes to be invaded. People will obviously fight much harder for their own homes and citizens than they will for someone else's. -dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Deych Posted July 1, 2000 Share Posted July 1, 2000 Killmore, As far as I know, most of the Leningrad's population by the end of the blockade was still civilian. Don't forget, it was a major productions center and somebody had to work in the factories. Some children were evacuated, if they were lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bratboy Posted July 1, 2000 Share Posted July 1, 2000 Also, you need to keep in mind that when Hitler first invaded the Soviet Union, the people, especially in the outer republics were glad to be free from Stalin. The only problem is that the Nazis considered them untermench (sorry about the spelling), and killed them faster than Stalin did. Only after the Germans started slaughtering civilians in great numbers did the war in Russia become the Great Patriotic War and engender the fierce resistance that eventually bled Hitler white. I agree that in Europe the U.S. would not tolerate such losses, but on the homefront we would would have sacrificed just as the Russians do. In reference to the civil war, the Confederates fought for several years without shoes and adequate supplies, quite an undertaking when you had to walk everywhere. Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcusm Posted July 1, 2000 Share Posted July 1, 2000 Josh Thanx for the clarifications Marcus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts