Soviet casaulty question.

[Mord]

I'll make this quick. I got into a discussion and this Russian chick is claiming soviet casualties are as low as 9 million or less for WWII. I say much higher...She's saying CIA paid historians to claim high casualties for cold war propaganda purposes.

So what say you guys?

I know there's been a lot of new info on this over the last decade or so since the Union dissolved and I tend to think they are higher than 9 million.

Mord.

[Lt Belenko]

Higher. The numbers I quote are from the original Panzer Blitz booklet. Russian totals 12 Million Soldiers 12.5 Million Civilians. But my memory fades.

[Stalins Organ]

9 million total, or 9 million military?

9 million military is probably about right.

9 total? no one seriously thinks the Sov's suffered that few - they had 6 million POW's, of which 3 million were killed!! Add to that KIA's on the front line and civilians, and 600,000 dead in the Gulags 1941-45, and 9 million total is immediately suspect.

there's a wiki article on just this topic - even the Russian sources used ther apparently give 13 million dead civilians, and a total population loss over WW2 of 26 million!

I don't see how a higher total blamable on the Nazi's would be something the CIA would find useful.

[Mord]

Whoops (was in a hurry) I meant 9 mil for military...Yeah, you WOULD have to be crazy to suggest 9 for the whole shebang!

Her CIA argument was so weird it was actually believable to me, just because of the crazy stuff they were doing in the late 50's and 60's but not to the extent she made it sound.

Mord.

[Stalins Organ]

9 million is fine then teh wiki page says 8.8 million.

the highest I've ever seen was, IIRC, a figure given in the old Panzer-blitz game of 12.5 million each for military and civilian - but even that was fudged by saying the total was 20-25 million.

so I don't know what exagerated numbers she thinks the CIA was peddling - 12.5 million isn't really a major error if 9 million is "correct".

[Kanonier Reichmann]

so I don't know what exagerated numbers she thinks the CIA was peddling - 12.5 million isn't really a major error if 9 million is "correct".

Hmmm... an error of 3.5 divided by 9 as a percentage is getting pretty damn close to 40% (38.9% to be more precise). In my book I would call that a pretty major error!

Regards

KR

[Bigduke6]

8 to 9 million military casualties is the number generally accepted by historians.

Without having met your no doubt charming Russian ladyfriend, I will say that some people from the former Soviet Union, when confronted with a Westerner contradicting their arguments, sometimes, will attempt to undermine the Westerner's arguments by claiming the CIA/KGB created the "facts" the Westerner has brought to the discussion.

This of course implies the person from the former Soviet Union has a monopoly on "real facts", because (according to the person from the former Soviet Union), no Westerner could ever tell the difference between reality, and a pretend reality created in the minds of a general public by a spy agency.

In the case of your lady acquaintance, if she is from Russia it might well be possible she doesn't want to admit the Red Army piled up the casualties, as believing Russia's army is always strong and efficient and effective is in fashion in Russia right now.

If that is indeed the case, you might point out that Solzhenytisn, pretty much the greatest Russian writer of the last century, made very clear that was not the case: He tells a classic story of commanders refusing to shift infantry from a position along the beaten path of shell sheafs, to a perpendicular line, because of fears of seeming like they were ordering a retreat. Solzhenytsin said hundreds were killed and wounded in the incident, and that was the Red Army's mindset. So if the question is whether or not the Red Army tried to avoid casualties in WW2, and your Russian friend is saying "yes they did", then you can tell her she is entitled to her opinion but Solzhenytsin's was 180 degrees different, who is she to contradict Solzhenytsin?

As a general thing, the more educated the person from the FSU, the less likely they are to resort to this tactic.

Besides the Solzhenytsin gambit, there are plenty of other much more basic debating techniques one can use to demolish such arguments. The simplest is the classic "Oh yeah? Well prove it!"

But as a pretty much iron-clad rule, if a person employs the line "The KGB/CIA has manipulated your facts, so your point of view is worthless," it is usually pointless to continue a discussion with that person. He/she after all is openly conceding unproved assumptions are the basis of his/her opinion.

[Affentitten]

I'm not quite getting the logic of the CIA saying that the USSR made a bigger sacrifice than they actually did.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

The Russian war dead were the currency with which eastern Poland was paid for. If anything, the CIA might have been inclined to downplay them.

[Stalins Organ]

KR 40% might be a big number, but IMO it is unimportant - 9 million or 13 million - one is over twice the population of my country, the other is over 3 times - both are freakin' huge numbers of dead people!

At that scale, IMO, the difference doesn't change any argument about sacrifice, scale of destruction or anything else.......hence the difference changes nothing.

[gunnergoz]

FWIW, my Ukrainian wife lived in Russia and Ukraine for over 40 years until I brought her to the US in 2000. She was taught that the Soviets lost 25 million men, women and children during the war from all causes. She and I debate the extent to which Stalin's idiotic decisions contributed to that total, but from my readings, I tend to believe it is pretty much correct overall.

[Cuirassier]

FWIW, Glantz in When Titans Clashed cites Soviet irrevocable losses as 11 285 057 and sanitary losses as 18 344 148, making the total 29 629 205.

[Tero]

By Cuirassier

FWIW, Glantz in When Titans Clashed cites Soviet irrevocable losses as 11 285 057 and sanitary losses as 18 344 148, making the total 29 629 205.

What muddies the water with this type of classification of losses they do not separate civilian and military casualties.

[Affentitten]

There were no civilians in the Soviet Union...

[JonS]

In Soviet Russia, civilian kill you.

[Redwolf]

I'll make this quick. I got into a discussion and this Russian chick is claiming soviet casualties are as low as 9 million or less for WWII. I say much higher...She's saying CIA paid historians to claim high casualties for cold war propaganda purposes.

This line of arguing is usually followed by those who think that Stalin didn't kill many of his own people, aka that all losses were inflicted by the Germans.

[gunnergoz]

Russians often have views at distinct variance from those of Ukrainians, BTW. Stalin is much less popular in Ukraine as opposed to in Russia. Current national government notwithstanding, the ordinary Ukrainian's willingness to stand up to their big brother is one of the country's most endearing qualities...

[Stalins Organ]

Back to the point in hand tho...was she cute, and did she put out once you agreed with her??

[Dietrich]

some people from the former Soviet Union, when confronted with a Westerner contradicting their arguments, sometimes, will attempt to undermine the Westerner's arguments by claiming the CIA/KGB created the "facts" the Westerner has brought to the discussion.

This of course implies the person from the former Soviet Union has a monopoly on "real facts", because (according to the person from the former Soviet Union), no Westerner could ever tell the difference between reality, and a pretend reality created in the minds of a general public by a spy agency.

In his tomely Blood, Tears, and Folly: An Objective Look at World War II, Len Deighton writes (italics mine, parentheses his):

Tightly closed formations of men from penal battalions, or unarmed Russian civilians from local towns and villages, were driven shoulder to shoulder in front of an advance, or across a minefield as a way of clearing it for an attack. (Such desparate methods of clearing mines were freely admitted by the Soviet generals after the war in conversations with their Allied counterparts. Most people in the West simply refused to believe such things had happened.)

So while some folks in the former USSR claim[ed] that Western intelligence agencies inflated casualty figures for Cold War propaganda purposes, some folks in the West express[ed] shocked disbelief of how ruthless and profligate the Soviet Union was with its own military forces.

[Michael Emrys]

...how ruthless and profligate the Soviet Union was with its own military forces.

Certainly true by Western standards. They moderated the practice a bit after mid-1943, as it dawned on even STAVKA that the Soviet manpower pool, though deep, was not bottomless. They were willing to pay a huge price in blood for Berlin however. Stalin and the generals wanted a big finish for their production.

Michael

[Affentitten]

Certainly true by Western standards. They moderated the practice a bit after mid-1943, as it dawned on even STAVKA that the Soviet manpower pool, though deep, was not bottomless.

Michael

I think at that point it was also the rise of a more professional and experienced cadre of officers that took over, along with a reciprocal decline in the influence of the political commisars. Even Stalin had the sense to realise that the war was better off being run by guys like Zhukov and Koniev than himself.

As an aside, the human mine clearance was a regualr feature of the Iran-Iraq war as well, but performed by Iranian youth volunteers from the Basij

[Michael Emrys]

BTW, in discussing Soviet manpower, one aspect of Lend-Lease that rarely gets mentioned is that by delivering ready to use items like canned food, boots, radios, etc., a lot of manpower was freed up from the manufacturing sector and could go into uniform and fight.

Michael

[Stalins Organ]

AFAIK food and trucks are often the 2 most emphasised aspects of lend lease - the numbers and quality of weapons are often disparaged.