Soviet losses in ww2

[Iron Ranger]

WOW, impressive number .. 54% of all men. If you factor in old and young your talking about close to 100% of all males 16-45. Then again someone posted that males 17-24 were all but wiped out in russia (5%).

[Cary]

Originally posted by Rolend:

I tend to agree with Andreas, in today’s PC world the contributions to the war effort by the Allies seem to be down played. I wonder how much tougher a time Russia would of had, had they not received all the equipment and supplies from America? If they would of had to face all the men, air power and resources that had been tied up in Germany defending the constant air attacks from England and US Air Forces? If they had to face all the troops, equipment and supplies tied up in N. Africa, Italy, Greece and Norway?

Please don't misunderstand me, I think that the Russians did take a HUGE hit in the war and sacrificed far more then the rest of the Allies but that in no way should lessen the efforts the English and Americans put into the war in Europe. Could the Russians have beat off the Germans alone? Maybe but there is NO doubt that without the help of the Allies those numbers being talked about here would of been a fraction of the loses they would of suffered going it alone.

Granted, the Soviets were right at the edge of destruction, probably unable to breath anywhere near easy until after the 6th Army surrendered in 1943. And, further, the duece and a half was critical in allowing the Soviets to make it to Berlin.

But, contrary to an above post, my calculation is that the Soviets caused about 80% of the German military casualties between 1941 and 1945. Maybe I'm just PC to think that this is a significant contribution to the war effort.

My numbers are here, admittedly based on wikipedia, but, well, if you're sure they're wrong, change them...

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=019963;p=8#000184

Originally posted by Hyazinth von Strachwitz:

@ Cary: yep. Any democracy or modern state would have surrendered after the first month of the Barbarossa Campaign... Russia needed a Lunatic willing to sacrifice millions by that time or they would have lost half of their state... just imagine how the world would look like today if the USSR would have accepted a defeat and accepted a similar preace treaty to the one they accepted in 1918... snip....

Hyazinth, in general I agree with you, but I'm not so sure about your first point -- France, Germany, and Britain all do quite well at bludgeoning each other into bloody pulps from 1914-1918. The Western Allies we would, of course, consider modern democracies, while Germany's resilience owed much to the concessions Bismarck and the Kaiser had made to democracy in the decades before. Granted, a drunk (Grant) won the American Civil War, but he was a democratic drunk. And, for that matter, the Franco-Prussian war would have lasted much longer had Napoleon III not been a fool and gotten himself captured.

A more interesting question is what the world would like like today if the United States had made an even smaller contribution in World War I.

Yes I have to agree on this one. The more I read about Stalin the more obvious it become that this man was highly rational and practical, willing to sacrifice ideals and beliefs to retain power, maybe something Hitler had much likely harder to do.

Agreed; Trotsky was a brilliant ideologue, well read, and cultured. Stalin was a union organizer from Georgia, somewhat brutal, but not a thinker-- few Bolsheviks took him all that seriously. He was given the job of keeping the party membership cards up to date....

We know how the story ended.

As to Stalin's personality: Paranoid, and willing to act on his paranoia? certainly. A drinker? ... need one answer? A lunatic? Highly doubtful. Did he almost lose the Great Patriotic war before it started? Unquestionably -- forward defense with an army that you've stripped of NCOs = Bad idea.

Did he do a good job of leading the Soviet Union in war? Well, I guess the crucial point is that he realized he was in over his head, and, surprisingly, gave over strategic command to his generals -- Zhukov not least. The Soviets could have had far worse leadership 1941-1945.

[ July 14, 2006, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Cary ]

[Liam]

Well, Since I had family in both England and the United States during both the Civil War of the USA and WW1. I should know how modern nations handle losses. The English paid a terrible price, Belgium and France worse being on the front. Can you say that England was a true Democracy though? For the most part... More of a Monarchy with a Prime Minister.. France however quite the opposite.. Both Americans and English sacrificed greatly. Relatively to their Europeans counterparts. The USA hasn't been threatened on Land, but if they were, if it's any sign their own native populations met near extinction before surrending their way of life, a quality that exists in us today. Who else was on the verge of total doomsday with 1 red button aside from the USA and USSR?

The USA owed Europe zilch, the fact she sent men in was only due to the fact that the Germans screwed up at sea, sinking too many Americans and too many of our interests.. The blood and carnage was a European Affair... that we contribued what a hundred fifty thousand dead for Europeans is sad! I should also point out without those extra doughboys, I do not think that the war would've ended in 1918, they were needed for the final push against the Hindenburg Line for a swift victory.

On the subject of deaths and losses, check the Armenians? Hell, it's a shocker there are any left, in the chaos of the Ottoman collapse and constant Rebellion what did they lose? I'm certian much higher than Serbia or the USSR-Germany in WW2 .

Germany killed many Russians but she didn't kill enough. Plus Russians pulled on her reserves, which she did have. I head heard 80% of all men born in the 1920s Russia were dead by the end of WW2, but regardless. The Reds could keep marching, they could afford to lose 2 or 3 men for Germany's 1. Simply because they outnumbered Germany 3 to 1.

Simple logistics, and they were in no threat by Stalingrad, they were using women much like Castro's Cuba by this point.. there are Women Aces in the Red Airforce, this is a quality the Germans would themselves adopt when desperate. Fact is matters didn't have to become so desperate, a little better retreat, could've preserved millions of Russians to fight it out later. The Reds were killed by the dozen because their leadership stunk and their foe was very hateful of them. The Poles a porportionate amount of their own population as did many other nations in World War II. Stalin was just too stubborn early, Purged his Leadership, ignored the obvious, a Grey Threat...and like Hitler just was oblivious, he did come alive.. but a good Leader in the USSR could've stemmed the Germans by Winter with much less loss of life IMO, I could be wrong but who in this room would disagree with me ?

If you disagreed with Stalin you went to Siberia or you were re-educated

Originally posted by Cary:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rolend:

I tend to agree with Andreas, in today’s PC world the contributions to the war effort by the Allies seem to be down played. I wonder how much tougher a time Russia would of had, had they not received all the equipment and supplies from America? If they would of had to face all the men, air power and resources that had been tied up in Germany defending the constant air attacks from England and US Air Forces? If they had to face all the troops, equipment and supplies tied up in N. Africa, Italy, Greece and Norway?

Please don't misunderstand me, I think that the Russians did take a HUGE hit in the war and sacrificed far more then the rest of the Allies but that in no way should lessen the efforts the English and Americans put into the war in Europe. Could the Russians have beat off the Germans alone? Maybe but there is NO doubt that without the help of the Allies those numbers being talked about here would of been a fraction of the loses they would of suffered going it alone.

Granted, the Soviets were right at the edge of destruction, probably unable to breath anywhere near easy until after the 6th Army surrendered in 1943. And, further, the duece and a half was critical in allowing the Soviets to make it to Berlin.

But, contrary to an above post, my calculation is that the Soviets caused about 80% of the German military casualties between 1941 and 1945. Maybe I'm just PC to think that this is a significant contribution to the war effort.

My numbers are here, admittedly based on wikipedia, but, well, if you're sure they're wrong, change them...

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=019963;p=8#000184

Originally posted by Hyazinth von Strachwitz:

@ Cary: yep. Any democracy or modern state would have surrendered after the first month of the Barbarossa Campaign... Russia needed a Lunatic willing to sacrifice millions by that time or they would have lost half of their state... just imagine how the world would look like today if the USSR would have accepted a defeat and accepted a similar preace treaty to the one they accepted in 1918... snip....

Hyazinth, in general I agree with you, but I'm not so sure about your first point -- France, Germany, and Britain all do quite well at bludgeoning each other into bloody pulps from 1914-1918. The Western Allies we would, of course, consider modern democracies, while Germany's resilience owed much to the concessions Bismarck and the Kaiser had made to democracy in the decades before. Granted, a drunk (Grant) won the American Civil War, but he was a democratic drunk. And, for that matter, the Franco-Prussian war would have lasted much longer had Napoleon III not been a fool and gotten himself captured.

A more interesting question is what the world would like like today if the United States had made an even smaller contribution in World War I. </font>

[Liam]

http://www.un.org/aboutun/

an interesting page of figures of casualties

I like the way that they refer to the Reds having bled the Germans white.. Fact is since the Reds conspired with the Germans during the division of Poland they got a little bit of what they deserved?

Had the USSR thrown it in with France and Great Britian in 1940 there wouldn't have been a WW2 so as far as all these USA knockers, I have one thing to say... Greed got Stalin nearly destroyed and history is written by the victors.. who knows the real losses and carnage..

One American/British life was worth 5 to 10 Russian lives, because we valued it that much greater, and bit less for a German... ~Liam

P.S. what people like Rambo say about nations like Holland is true, those men didn't die for their Homeland...

[SeaMonkey]

I think with the true information being what it was of this time period, sketchy at best;

the vastness of the conflict, the rudimentary communications, the secrecy of the regime, Ill go out on a limb here and say:

"We all can be right"

After all, who really knows the truth, who could know it all?

No way anyone can refute anyone else with any credibility, say what you will, its all conjecture.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Iron Ranger:

WOW, impressive number .. 54% of all men. If you factor in old and young your talking about close to 100% of all males 16-45. Then again someone posted that males 17-24 were all but wiped out in russia (5%).

A slight mis-quote on my part - according to Wiki they had some 1,300, 000 casualties - not dead - comprising 28% of pop'n, 58% of males. but "only" 450,000 of these were dead.

[Cary]

.... ahm..

nvm.

[ July 13, 2006, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Cary ]

[Liam]

Numbers are difficult to put an precise digit upon. I've read since the age of 12, at least 10-15 different numbers for body count for Soviet Union WW2, all fairly decent sources

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Liam:

I like the way that they refer to the Reds having bled the Germans white.. Fact is since the Reds conspired with the Germans during the division of Poland they got a little bit of what they deserved? Had the USSR thrown it in with France and Great Britian in 1940 there wouldn't have been a WW2 so as far as all these USA knockers, I have one thing to say... Greed got Stalin nearly destroyed and history is written by the victors.. who knows the real losses and carnage..

I'm not sure I like those remarks about Hitlers "greed" or Stalin beeing a "lunatic" etc etc. It's all too simple, hey I don't like the Bush administrations foreign policy but that does'nt mean I think it's all about Bush beeing a Lunatic. As always it's about what values you cheerish and what you prioritize.

I mean look at Poland, created after WWI, thought by the communist leaders to be russian soil until the Tzar gambled it away. Of course would'nt you want your country back?

Then back to 1939, along comes France and UK with a suggestions of a pact against Germany. Same countries that 20 years ago tried to crush the Soviet state in the civil war. They sent troops and armed the Red Army's enemies so how high do you think Stalin regarded the west?

Plus due to Leninism, imperialism was the highest level of capitalism and with that focus of course the soviet government was not that eager to help out neither Germans or the allied.

Not to defend Stalin but there are more than just "greed" and the like to world politics.

One American/British life was worth 5 to 10 Russian lives, because we valued it that much greater, and bit less for a German... ~Liam

That is quiet an appalling thing to say really. Russian people broke the back on Nazi Germany and you should be glad you wouldnt have to land at d-day facing 192 extra veteran wehrmacht divisions. Hitler wanted lebensraum and he struck at the time while the Red Army was not strong enough and the Allies had been thrown off the european continent. So what should Stalin have made differently?

Not trust Germany maybe but seen to the circumstances they tried to buy time, move the borders west and rearm the army. THis is not a defensespeech of the communist leadership but let us agree upon that there are more to this than just "greed" etc.

[jon_j_rambo]

There is more than "just the leader" of a country. Leaders are reflections of the people. I get so tired of this AH or JS only fault crap. There forces of power in this world that elevate the leader.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

There is more than "just the leader" of a country. Leaders are reflections of the people. I get so tired of this AH or JS only fault crap. There forces of power in this world that elevate the leader.

Very much agree with you here.

[jon_j_rambo]

Mahmoud Ahmandidagon is the leader of interest today.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

There is more than "just the leader" of a country. Leaders are reflections of the people. I get so tired of this AH or JS only fault crap. There forces of power in this world that elevate the leader.

Very much agree with you here. </font>

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

@ JJR: If George W. Bush is a reflection of the american people, good night America!!

Coming back on one thing I should have explained more detailed: when I say modern democracy, I should have said something like "modern state where every dead soldier is found on page one in the yellow press". IMHO a major problem for that US in Vietnam were the reporters who made pictures of everything... they learned of it, and in the 1991 Gulf War there were way less reporters. But in a long ongoing war (like the both WW) there is no way of keeping the press away from it for longer in a democracy.. so basically when I say modern democracy, I mean the western world after 1970... with Internet and Mobile phones, where every news spreads like a disease.... I hope that makes it bit easier for you guys to understand what I wanted to say, but english is not my mother tongue.

Sometimes I wonder how the next large scale war will develop... I hope it will come as late as possible.. and it will be rich against hungry or atheist against believers.

[ July 13, 2006, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: Hyazinth von Strachwitz ]

[Cary]

Originally posted by Hyazinth von Strachwitz:

@ JJR: If George W. Bush is a reflection of the american people, good night America!!

Coming back on one thing I should have explained more detailed: when I say modern democracy, I should have said something like "modern state where every dead soldier is found on page one in the yellow press". IMHO a major problem for that US in Vietnam were the reporters who made pictures of everything... they learned of it, and in the 1991 Gulf War there were way less reporters. But in a long ongoing war (like the both WW) there is no way of keeping the press away from it for longer in a democracy.. so basically when I say modern democracy, I mean the western world after 1970... with Internet and Mobile phones, where every news spreads like a disease.... I hope that makes it bit easier for you guys to understand what I wanted to say, but english is not my mother tongue.

Good points Hyazinth, and well put. (Your English is so good that it's clear I disagree with you. )

Note first, the "Yellow Press" is almost as likely to print "In Flanders' Fields" as another photograph of "the fallen."

There was a study out about six years ago trying to get a handle on just how "casualty averse" different groups of people in the United States actually were: in general politicians were least willing to accept casualties, the professional military somewhere in between, and the general populace the most. There was significant disagreement, for example between people in governnment and the public as to when to pull the plug on an operation like Somalia (in 1991). Politicians seemed to think 40 casualties was too high, the general public (I'm trying to remember, but I think the number was) 400.

So there's something more going on than just the public seeing pictures, not liking them, then saying "pull out."

This is, by the way, in line with most studies of Vietnam -- popular protests were much less significant than disaffection amongst political elites (George Kennan, Walter Lippmann and other cognoscenti first, but then widening circles of high officials -- George Ball, then eventually even McNamara and Bundy) and increasing concern within the military about the damage stalemate was doing to their institution. Certainly there were a bunch of noisy students on the campuses, but by and large the American populace was still relatively willing to believe that Kontum was a vital national interest for which it was worth fighting and dying.

(How many people remember where Kontum actually is, speaking of our vital interests?)

One American/British life was worth 5 to 10 Russian lives, because we valued it that much greater, and bit less for a German... ~Liam

As to this, catch Rambo in a bad mood and he might argue with you for implying that Americans are cowards who put too much value on their own skin.... I'll save my breath on that argument.

But have you any data on this? A comparison of Russian and American behavior in the Cold War doesn't really support your hypothesis: the U.S. seems quite willing to send boys to die for places like Kontum; at least given the casualty figures, the Soviets far less so. Granted, the Soviets are quite happy to spend North Korean, Vietnamese, or Chinese lives at a high discount, but that's not particularly a surprise.

Do you account for the fact that in World War II Soviets were dying at home, while "our boys" were dying abroad?

Can you give an estimate of the home-court discount on casualties?

I like the way that they refer to the Reds having bled the Germans white.

And finally... I detect a bit of sarcasm here, but wouldn't causing 4/5ths of the battle casualties the Germans suffered between 1941 and 12/44 count as bleeding the Germans white? I'd suggest leaving your PC fantasy-land to engage with facts. Granted, there's a little debate about the numbers Wiki used (Overman's), but it's at the margins and doesn't concern the ratio of losses between fronts. Further, the data is German -- ethnic stereotypes aside, the records are available and have been available for half a century, in contrast to the less-reliable soviet records.

[ July 14, 2006, 06:54 AM: Message edited by: Cary ]

[jon_j_rambo]

We've got the greatest nation ever, in the history of the world for freedoms, fun, etc...Yet they continue to bash us. Maybe these Europeans would prefer the Dark Ages again? Europe has caused all the wars & problems, not us.

[Cary]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

We've got the greatest nation ever, in the history of the world for freedoms, fun, etc...Yet they continue to bash us. Maybe these Europeans would prefer the Dark Ages again? Europe has caused all the wars & problems, not us.

Well Rambo, since you've jumped back into the conversation...

One American/British life was worth 5 to 10 Russian lives, because we valued it that much greater, and bit less for a German... ~Liam

Is this bashing us or praising us? Seems like Liam's saying that Americans are cowards... Perhaps we'd better get our story straight.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Europe has caused all the wars & problems, not us.

Well can't you americans once and for all tell Israel to accept the borders drawn up by the UN and stop this crap they throw. Only reason Israel time and time again is allow to break UN obligations are because USA is supporting them.

Please stop that.

- Let palestinians have their own state as you agreed on in 1948.

- Press Israel to follow the public international law.

If you do that the Middle east question will be very much solved. Sorry to say but it all boils down to the USA that this madness is allowed to continue.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

Although it is a bit off topic I need to say that the way the Israeli military treats the people in south Libanon and Gaza makes we wonder where they learned that style...

[Cary]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Europe has caused all the wars & problems, not us.

Well can't you americans once and for all tell Israel to accept the borders drawn up by the UN and stop this crap they throw. Only reason Israel time and time again is allow to break UN obligations are because USA is supporting them.

Please stop that.

- Let palestinians have their own state as you agreed on in 1948.

- Press Israel to follow the public international law.

If you do that the Middle east question will be very much solved. Sorry to say but it all boils down to the USA that this madness is allowed to continue. </font>

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Europe has caused all the wars & problems, not us.

That`s right esp. the war of 1812 against Canada. This one was caused by nazi propaganda and communist treachery.

[Yogi]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Europe has caused all the wars & problems, not us.

Well can't you americans once and for all tell Israel to accept the borders drawn up by the UN and stop this crap they throw. Only reason Israel time and time again is allow to break UN obligations are because USA is supporting them.

Please stop that.

- Let palestinians have their own state as you agreed on in 1948.

- Press Israel to follow the public international law.

If you do that the Middle east question will be very much solved. Sorry to say but it all boils down to the USA that this madness is allowed to continue. </font>

[Kuniworth]

US Iran-Contras affair was kinda gay.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Yogi:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kuniworth:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Europe has caused all the wars & problems, not us.

Well can't you americans once and for all tell Israel to accept the borders drawn up by the UN and stop this crap they throw. Only reason Israel time and time again is allow to break UN obligations are because USA is supporting them.

Please stop that.

- Let palestinians have their own state as you agreed on in 1948.

- Press Israel to follow the public international law.

If you do that the Middle east question will be very much solved. Sorry to say but it all boils down to the USA that this madness is allowed to continue. </font>

[Yogi]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Yogi:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kuniworth:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Europe has caused all the wars & problems, not us.

Well can't you americans once and for all tell Israel to accept the borders drawn up by the UN and stop this crap they throw. Only reason Israel time and time again is allow to break UN obligations are because USA is supporting them.

Please stop that.

- Let palestinians have their own state as you agreed on in 1948.

- Press Israel to follow the public international law.

If you do that the Middle east question will be very much solved. Sorry to say but it all boils down to the USA that this madness is allowed to continue. </font>