Why were WWII Soviet casualties extremely high? (raids, Sweden, political)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Another excellent response from TonyT and I concur with pretty much everything he said. We have some differences of opinion over what was listed as number 5, but as TonyT pointed out, this has been argued ad nauseum in many different threads and is really a nuts and bolts argument more then anything else.
In general I guess Torrachris' question/statement boils down to, "could Germany have won the war?" I think the answer to that is that it was certainly possible for the Germans to win the war, but you really can't hinge it on a single decision as being the one that lost. Some people want to say, had Hitler not diverted resources and simply driven straight onto Moscow, they would have won. This decision is what TonyT and I among others have argued over in the past to a very detailed level. However, the reality is that no one knows what would have happened if that decision was done differently. They may have failed to take Moscow, they may have taken it only to lose it to a counter-attack or it may have knocked the Russians out of the war...we simply don't know. What we do know is what happened historically and we can work to understand those decisions to help paint a picture of why the choices were made.
Beyond that, while it's fun to speculate on alt-history scenarios, there isn't anything to be really gained out of them other then entertainment and in the case of Germany in WW2, there really is no single decision or moment to point to and say, that's where they lost the war. One can divine it by the historical record and pick a moment, but had the decision been done differently we have no idea how it would have played out.
To TonyT.
Actually, Spain supplied Germany with 45,00 Spanish and Portuguese soldiers that served on the Eastern Front. They were awarded both Spanish and German military awards and were the only division awarded a medal of their own, commissioned by Hitler. Although the Spanish Blue Division were mostly volunteers they performed well at the Battle of Krasny Bor, near the main Moscow-Leningrad road. Despite heavy casualties the Spaniards were able to hold their ground against a Red Army force 7 times larger and supported by tanks. The assault was contained and the Siege of Leningrad was maintained for a further year. So, Spain did contribute significantly to the Axis during the war. In fact, Hitler referred to the Spanish Blue division as " equal to the best German ones".
To TonyT.
Actually, Spain supplied Germany with 45,00 Spanish and Portuguese soldiers that served on the Eastern Front. They were awarded both Spanish and German military awards and were the only division awarded a medal of their own, commissioned by Hitler. Although the Spanish Blue Division were mostly volunteers they performed well at the Battle of Krasny Bor, near the main Moscow-Leningrad road. Despite heavy casualties the Spaniards were able to hold their ground against a Red Army force 7 times larger and supported by tanks. The assault was contained and the Siege of Leningrad was maintained for a further year. So, Spain did contribute significantly to the Axis during the war. In fact, Hitler referred to the Spanish Blue division as " equal to the best German ones".
I am well aware of the existence and war record of the "Division Azul". That being said, the performance of a sum total of 45,000 men, regardless of how well they fought, can't be taken as an indicator of how helpful Spain would have been overall as a full fledged, fighting member of the Axis in say 1940 or 1941. The fact remains that in order to repair the damage done to both Spain's military and economy by the Civil War, it would have taken a minimum of five years and untold amounts of money. Germany simply did not have the time or the resources to undertake such a project, especially when it would be better spent on the other members of the Axis (Italy, Hungary, Romania) who brought more to the table than Spain.
As one historian put it quite simply and succinctly "Hitler was not interested in a high priced alliance with a destitute country for the capture of a distant British naval base". So beyond Gibraltar and providing additional cannon fodder for the Eastern Front, I still see no significant upside for Germany in having Spain become a member of the Axis.
Have to agree with TonyT. Spain would have been about as helpful as Romania or Hungary, which is to say not very. Spanish troops would have required German made weapons and equipment which weren't exactly in abundance.
First of all your numbers are wrong, the US had 400,000 420,000 combat deaths during ww2. Add to that 600,000 or so wounded for a total of about 1,000,000 casualties.That still pales in comparison to the Soviets ,Germans, or Japan. How many dead have we had in Iraq in 10 years 5-6000. Wake up America!
First of all your numbers are wrong, the US had 400,000 420,000 combat deaths during ww2. Add to that 600,000 or so wounded for a total of about 1,000,000 casualties.That still pales in comparison to the Soviets ,Germans, or Japan. How many dead have we had in Iraq in 10 years 5-6000. Wake up America!
In WW2 the US military suffered 291,557 combat deaths, 113,842 non-combat deaths for a total death count of 405,399. The US further suffered 670,846 wounded for a total casualty count of 1,076,245. Not included in that number are 30,314 classified as "missing".
The exact number would be 4,486 US troops killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2012. Though I don't see what that has to do with WW2 and the Soviet Union.
History forum is on one if it's periodic declines apparently from the recent crop of trawled dead threads, concealed help me with my homework Qs. and You can't handle the Truth type of postings.
History forum is on one if it's periodic declines apparently from the recent crop of trawled dead threads, concealed help me with my homework Qs. and You can't handle the Truth type of postings.
Agreed I've been amazed at the number of resurrected threads, not just in History, but other forums as well. Maybe people are trying to up their post counts for the contest? As a former winner, I'll give a hint to people who think volume is what wins, it doesn't. They score the posts for content and weight posts made during the contest period heavily. You can post 1,000 one-liners and add no information in those 1,000 posts and have a lower score then someone who makes 10 posts full of original content and information.
USSR had only 25 years to prepare for the war. It's very small time considering that Revolution of 1917 and following 4 years long Civil War almost destroyed industrial capacity, exterminated and expelled millions of the former elite and professional classes (who dominated military, engineering & industry, education & civil government). In essence, Stalin' USSR had to rebuild it's educated class from peasant&workers scratch, reinvent lost technologies and know hows, rebuild military education & training using little more than poorly educated "peasant stock". I essence Soviet Russia destroyed its class system in 1917 just to spend the next 24 years to frantically reinvent and to rebuild it. Industrial societies are deeply class based societies, it doesn't matter how you call them, capitalist or socialist.
Just imagine USA losing 80% of its educated classes and military experts. Just imagine that 200 years long West Point tradition is interrupted and erased. Could American trailer park dwellers accomplish what Stalin' Russia accomplished under these circumstances? Something like winning a war on the first class Industrial power with uninterrupted military, industrial and educational traditions? How many casualties it would take?
Just compare Soviet casualties to the Russian WWI casualties. http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/resources/casdeath_pop.html
Russian WWI casualties are high mainly because of the large number of prisoners. In other words, tzarist army refused to fight despite being led by the professional nobles (who had way too many chances to prove their ineptitude). Stalin' army fought despite the gigantic losses. Russian tsarist army disintegrated after sustaining relatively mild (as for WWI) loses. That's major difference.
BTW, WWI Romania is absolute champ as far as casualties go. Close to 45% of the Romanian Army were KIA. Stalin' army fared better than that.
Last edited by RememberMee; 01-23-2013 at 10:56 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
