England, Soviet Union, who was more powerful,potent,forceful,and tenacious

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

Terrific stats and that's one great photo. I especially like the way they're trudging along with those work-a-day expressions, as though to say, "Comrade Commisar, when is lunch?"

Interesting slant on the situation.

[ May 07, 2003, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[SeaWolf_48]

The Russian casualties for Russia look really light. Last night on the internet I looked at about 10 different Military sites with Russian, German, and US/BR killed.

The mean number for all above were:

Russia, 9 to 10 million military dead.*

German, 3.5 million (including 1.5 mia's from Russia)

England, .32 million.

Us, .29 million.

*Russia spent their soldiers lives like they were potatoes. They didn't keep records because they were afraid that the people would get mad if they knew how horrific and pernicious they had become.

[JerseyJohn]

xwormwood

I think several of us have pretty much agreed with you. Essentially it's this: while all the Allies kept hitting at Germany it was the Russians who did the most pressing of the most vital issues, retaking of territory and destruction of combat troops.

Also agreed that, even six decades later, you probably do need to have lived in either Germany or Russia to get a true sense of what happened during the war.

[JerseyJohn]

Kuni

Your figure of 6.5 million German military losses, is that killed, wounded and missing, or only killed. The figure I've always seen for Germany is 3.5 million killed in action -- looking up now I see SeaWolf has the same figure and we reached it independantly.

Note on this General Discussion

One morbid fact that needs to be considered regarding the U. S. and battle casualties is this: more Americans were salvaged as wounded than was the case with any other country. Having been in and out of V. A. Hospitals several times while there were still a lagre number of U. S. WW II vets still alive, I can truthfully say I saw great numbers of permanently incapacitated Americans from WW II who would never leave those institutions.

In effect, the manpower loss to the U. S. is at least twice and perhaps more the number listed as killed in action. In anyone else's army these men would have been lost on the battlefield instead of, in so many cases, being patched up to become permanent vegetables. Very sorry for putting it that way, but I've seen these poor bastards twenty and thirty years after the fact and know what I'm saying. In the seventies I heard two or three of these veterans say things like, "I'm sitting here but really I died in 1944." There's no tactful way to discuss the butcher's bill for any war.

[ May 07, 2003, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[SeaWolf_48]

Dear Stabber.

I welcome your comment, we all have to be thick skinned when we post on the forum.

I think that the Submarine analogy is a little cavil. Building, testing, supporting, campaigning a submarine fleet is a huge undertaking. Much larger than equiping 10 Panzer Division. Germany also had four battleships and three battle cruisers, nine cruisers, and 30 destroyers, 70 torpedo boats, 30 escort boats, 280 minesweepers, 150 patrol boats, and 137 submarine chasers, 189 recon boats, 200 auxiliary boats, long with the 1100 submarines (u-boats).

[JerseyJohn]

Zappsweden

Undeniably correct. The whole nazi policy of singling out whole segments of the population for either degradation, inhuman treatment or outright extinction was incredibly self destructive. They forfeited the entire nation of Poland as a productive force, the entire Jewish population as anything more than doomed, starved, shortlived slaves compounding this insanity by devoting huge amounts of precious manpower and equipment resources (rolling stock and all the apparatus of the Holocaust) to the all out effort of exterminating them. The German conquerors alienated virtually ever population they came in contact with and by doing so helped, perhaps more than anything else, to ensure their own downfall.

[ May 07, 2003, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[SeaWolf_48]

Very good point Jersey.

When the English discovered penicillin it changed battlefield fatalities in England and America, also Army Medical Surgery Units so close to the front lines save thousands of lives. As you have said, it probibly saved double of the ones wounded to any other country. So then now we have over a million American and English dead. This will really kick the beehive!

If you want to look at the big picture, The United States and The British Empire were much larger, in both people and land, and in industrial strenght than their Russian ally. To site marshal deaths as the only factor for commitment and sacrifice is simplistic.

The static troops mentioned above were important in keeping order, and in defending the huge Fortress that Hilter built. Britian and The US tied down 25 divisions in the Balkans, 27 Divisions in Italy, 22 Divisions in Norway, 57 Divisions in france because of the fear of INVASION . Most all of the Divisions on the Eastern front would rotate to these areas to be refitted and rested, 4 months of constant combat was the limit of most WW2 divisions, either in Germany, US, or Britian. So troops would constantly be moving to keep them fresh, thus the necessity of quite zones.

[ May 07, 2003, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]

[Night]

It is true that the most German Troops were lost in Russia, and Russia might have also lost more people then the Western Allies, but you have to consider that the Soviet's didn't care about the lives of thier men very much, and were notorious for just charging thier troops into meat grinders basicly, not to mention that the was was fought on thier soil and hence more of thier people would die as side losses in cities being bombed/shelled, fought in and around, etc.

A good example of the lack of regard for Russin lives is the Movie "Enemy at the Gates" if anyone has ever seen it, the Soviet's in the movie at the beginning would just charge German position's with only half of thier men even wielding weapons! and told if they retreated they would be shot! Also, they didn't allow anyone to leave the city until the battle was nearly over.

I stick by my thought that without any of the "Big Three" the war could not have been won.

[Liam]

God I swear I'm brain dead. Picture of Kursk University as the German's retreated. I believe

[SeaWolf_48]

Knight

Good point about "Enemy at the gates". A year ago I read the book Stalingrad by Kramer, and he stated that Moskow spent 1,000,000 russians to take the city. That was 4 Ivans for one Fritz. He sights the same military tactics that are shown in the movie. Mindless Ivans screaming hurah and rushing at Fritz without a rifle, done enough times and Johann is out of bullets. Who cares about human life! One of Stalin's famous quotes is " One mans death is a tragedy, a million men's death is a statistic".

[SeaWolf_48]

To Liam

They look Russian to me!

Let me state that:

"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in france, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or any large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the sea, armed and guarded by the British fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World , with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old."

[ May 07, 2003, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]

[jon_j_rambo]

"When the one with rifle gets killed, the other one picks up the rifle" --- Enemy At the Gates.

"Don't die for your country, make the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" --- Patton

"We will never surrender" --- Churchill

The Allies were just that, the Allies. Each did what they had to do or thought was right at the time.

The Allies couldn't have won without the United States, thus making the United States the obvious choice for the most important/powerful to defeat Nazi Germany.

If you take Japan, UK, & Russia out of the picture....then pitted USA vs Germany, we would have kicked their asses mono-on-mono.

Everybody talks about the USA like we're just a walking pocket-book that buys are military victories with factories. What the hell (heaven) do you think German did building tanks, air, & naval to defeat all the unarmed countries of Europe?

--------------------------------------------------

Rambo's thoughts:

1) Germans were OVER-RATED, attacking sleeping farmers with tanks isn't that tough. The Brits showed 'em without Russia or France's help in the air/naval campaign.

2) Even though D-Day is seen as the Big Battle for the United States & its Allies, I thought it was stupid. Why did we send our young men to get butchered on the beaches of France? Most of the French were Nazis themselves. Great friends they are in 2003. Wouldn't be surprise if the Anti-Christ is baptized in Paris.

3) Don't believe the German stories of,"Oh, I was just regular Army, dude I was just doing my job, I'm a nice guy, not a Nazi." Yet whatever. Here's a quote........"Doing your job don't make it right, Boss" --- Cool Hand Luke

[ May 08, 2003, 02:14 AM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

One point I would like to make. When you are counting the "divisions" that were on the Eastern front and comparing them to the Western front "divisions" you are not counting the same things. Especially when you start counting the stuff that is in the Balkans.

Alot of those "divisions" in Balkans and Western front were not front line divisions, but because the majority of the military was committed to the Eastern Front, the German military made do with what it had, even taking POW's and putting them into units on the Western Front.

The Western Front didn't have the "cream" of the German Army. What it had were exhausted units from the Eastern Front that were doing R&R.

Anti-Air (ie Flak) units had 1,000,000 people or so, but alot of those were women.

Also, don't forget that the Germans and Russians when they fought each other were quite brutal to each other. Meant you very rarely surrendered if you had any other choice. Not so on the Western Front.

So when you start using those numbers to justify how "close" the different fronts were, keep those things in mind.

[Kuniworth]

Jersey, that is civilians included.

[JerseyJohn]

Kuni, thanks for the clarification.

[Terry]

I think Rambo was being a bit harsh on the French and on America's military contibution in the war.

It is certainly true that many French collaborated with the Nazi's, and indeed some of the last units fighting in Berlin were French SS volunteers. Vichy itself was a national mistake of the largest order, and the actions of portions of the armed forces in fighting the Allies in Syria and North Africa now appears almost anal in its attempt to preserve 'French Pride'. However, the actions of the Vichy reigme has to be placed within the political and social context of French society within the 30's and the pre-occupation, shared with many in Western Europe, of Communism vs Facism. To many, better a Nazi than a live under Stalinist reigme.

More importantly it ignores the fact that the French resistance was the largest in Europe, and that along with the Poles, they formed the largest Free Armies serving in the Grand Alliance. Their sacrafice, when their own countries were occupied and being reduced to rubble, should not be forgotten.

It may sometimes seem that the USA is interpretated as buying victory with Economic power. This merely reflects the fact that the US under Roosevelt did become an economic superpower in WWII. Lendlease, supplies to Russia, the Liberty ships and even the post war Marshal Plan were all keystones to the Allied plan. However, it isn't meant to negate or ignore the bravery and sacrfice of American troops, who served as best as anyone in the Pacific campaigns, the D-Dya landings, the daylight bombing raids over Germany etc. The Bastards of Bastogne, the voluteers in the Flying Tigers, The Doolittle Bombers are all remebered for their bravery. It's just that from a strategic level, which is what the intial question was, the USA economic power was an undeniable factor. Anyway, people working 100 hour weeks in horrible dirty munition factories did their part just as anyway else did.

[JerseyJohn]

Terry

There have been many discussions concerning the French actions in WW II, many of them concerning Vichy France. Below is a link to what I consider the most decisive of these. It has always been my position that Vichy was a German creation designed with the purpose of placating the French Colonial Empire and keeping it out of Allied control.

link to Discussion on Vichy France

Going beyond that, it appears Germany had very similar plans for Britain, had it been conquered in 1940. Germany's design there seems to have been the direct occupation of London and South East Britain with the restored (and fascist sympathetic) King Edward VIII (formerly the abdicated King turned Duke of Windsor) ruling a pro-German British Empire.

I believe it would have happened in Britain exactly as it had in France.

link to Topic Vichy Britain regarding a PBS documentary on the subject.

While I don't agree with Rambo's assessment of the Normandy Invasion, we are of the same view regarding the current World situation and the role of the United States.

As this is completely off topic I won't go into it in depth. I'll only say I see no defense for either the Russian or French positions regarding the U. S. actions in Iraq. Ousting Saddam Hussein and the Baath Regime should have been a joint effort of the international community, led by the United Nations. Instead, the French and Russians selfishly supported their own pathetic business deals with Hussein, not only putting the world in general at risk, but also hurting the Iraqi people and causing their nation to fall even deeper in dept supporting the repugnant whims of a meglomaniacal sociopathic madman. The Human Race has seen too much of that already, time for governments who support tyrany to start paying the price of their folly, starting with France.

[ May 08, 2003, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[SeaWolf_48]

From Shaka

Anti-Air (ie Flak) units had 1,000,000 people or so, but alot of those were women.

Well, that's just not true. Those who read about Nazi Germany know that the germans didn't use women in the military or in industry. Hitler was against using women for anything except making babies. They did however use 14-16 year old boys for AA guns. But that was one less person that could be used against the Soviets.

Also, don't forget that the Germans and Russians when they fought each other were quite brutal to each other. Meant you very rarely surrendered if you had any other choice. Not so on the Western Front.

The Russians captured more than a million German Wehrmacht troops, remember Stalingrad! The Germans captured 4 million Russians. Not many survived the prison camps and lots of Russians put on German uniforms with static division on all fronts (1/4 of the troops captured in Stalingrad were russians, and they were all shot), but they did take lots of prisoners. However, if you were an SS troop you were dead, and if you were a Russian Political Officer Hitler wanted you dead also, but they all knew the stakes.

The Western Front didn't have the "cream" of the German Army. What it had were exhausted units from the Eastern Front that were doing R&R.

I don't agree, the divisions behind the Atlantic Wall and the troops in Italy were some of there best. In Italy: 15 Pz Gr , HG Div, 3rd Pz, 28th Pz, 26th Pz, 16th Pz, 29th Pz Gr, 5th Mtn, 90th Pz Gr, 1 Para, in france: 9th Pz, 2SS pz, 11 Pz, 17SS Pz Gr, Pz Lehr, 21st Pz, 25th Pz Gr, 12SS Pz, 116th Pz, 1SS Pz, 19th Pz, 2nd Pz, 3rd Para, 5th Para.

Fifteen Panzer Divisiion, Five Panzer Grenidier Divisions, Three Paratrooper Divisions, and One Mountain Division. Hardly second line troops. Three Panzer Armies worth if elite Panzer troops, sorely missed in Mother Russia. These could have changed the complection of the nature of fighting in Russia if they were there.

In my reading about The Wehrmacht fighting in Normandy, one German Officer wished he could be on the Eastern Front because the Brit's and Americans had endless numbers of Fighter/bombers, tanks, and equipment. The Russians just had a lot of men and they could always out fight them. Even the endless numbers of T-34 tanks that the Russians built were destroyed at will by German Tankers. The Russians had bad Tank communications and tactics, and didnot overwhelm the Germans until late summer of '44. By then all was lost anyway because of Hitler's bad strategies in Russia, Africa, Italy and France, and the crushing defeat of Allied Bombing day and night, 1000 bombers at a time destroying almost all of the Gasoline production and reserves. No gas no war, no gas no tanks, or planes.

Your point about the Russians destroying the German Army's manpower is correct, but the Brit's and US destroyed the industry that supplied that army.

[ May 08, 2003, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]

[SeaWolf_48]

Jersey John. Preach it brother!

[JerseyJohn]

SeaWolf, Thanks for the support and Amen, Brother!

[SpitfireMarkX]

Quote By Rambo

The Allies couldn't have won without the United States, thus making the United States the obvious choice for the most important/powerful to defeat Nazi Germany.

What, try Least. USA fought the Easy war, the wars hard years were 40-41, and it was "Europes Problem then" USSR is # 1, they destroyed way more, and took way more sacrifices, Britain(Commonwealth) #2 USA #3.

[Terry]

JerseyJohn, couldn't agree more about Iraq and the current situation. Thanks for the link on Vichy - good string.

[jon_j_rambo]

Brad T: United States was least? No way. Please carefully read this:

If it wasn't for the United States, the Allies would have lost. Therefore, the United States is the most "something".

You're right about 1940-41, Germany was plowing unprepared farmers into the ground. That was pre-game.

Far as I'm concerned, all the United States is responsible for is Israel & anybody that wants to fight us directly.

Rambo is Red, White, & Bible

Captain of Team USA

[ May 08, 2003, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[JerseyJohn]

Terry

Glad we have the same view on these things and that you enjoyed the Vichy link. I think Califvol had some good points but I can't see blaming an entire country for forced political actions -- sitting on a pile of rubble doesn't enhance one's bargaining power.

[SpitfireMarkX]

What did America do that was so important in Italy compared to the USSR, and Britain(Commonwealth) Every battle accept the ground war, was slided to the Allies before USA even entered. USSR was losing ground fast, but they were just stalling the Germans. Battles America was in.

Air War: Britain-Canada were able to throw 1000 bombers over a German city a night, and America was not there, battle of Britain was won with out them.

Med: Commonwealth defeated most of the Italians, in the desert, and the Italians had low moral fighting at home, Germany had to defend Italy, and Britain was still the bigger force there.

Atlantic: Canada and Britain set up the sealanes and fought the dark days before America entered.

Overlord:America fought more then Britain here, but USSR was the most influencial, without them on the East overlord would have been imposible.

If it wasn't for the United States, the Allies would have lost.

When you start to look at without who you gotta look at everyone. USSR did the majority of the fighting, simple as that, killed the most Germans in every catagory I believe.

Britain: There would have been no war without Britain, especially with Churchill, everywhere could have been a pushover for Hitler if he didnt have that Pain in the ass to the West.

USA: Always tricky, I believe the war could have been won without them in the West, by Christmas 45, if there was no Japanese threat to the Commonwealth a million British, Australian, New Zealand, Indian, troops could have been in the west, and nations like Canada never had conscription, so if it was needed theres another 350000 soildiers, anyone else got input on this.

Canada: Do you guys think Britain could survive without em, if Canada went with its Europes Problem. Comments?