Why were WWII Soviet casualties extremely high? (Churchill, patriot, evidence)
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.
Now we compare the production numbers of Ford Focus and Porsche. German tanks, guns, aircraft, etc. were more complex and technologically involved. The numbers mean little. Soviets embraced the paradigm of quantity having quality of its own (and they got that right). Germans embraced paradigm of more quality on the expense of quantity (and they got it wrong). It's this technological complexity and crumbling European supply chain that did Germans in. However, even during 1945 German industrial and research capacity was sufficient to manufacture jets and rockets, something that took Stalin' Russia 5 more years to accomplish.
While German industrial production and technology were quite advanced and acheived a lot well into the last stages of the war, it could not overcome a couple of major factors that became critical in the last year of the war - shortages of manpower and fuel.
By 1944, battlefield losses had depleted the Germans of a lot of personnel, particularly trained and experienced people to man the tanks, lead forces, fly the planes. In the late stages of the war, fuel shortages also hamstrung logistical movements and limited aircraft deployment and training of pilots.
Check the numbers of industrial production during WWII. As I said, the numbers clearly show that during the war German industrial output was greater than that of Soviets for 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944. Think, Germany occupied entire European continent (except a few states), even "neutral" Sweden, Spain, Switzerland did contribute quite a bit to the German war efforts. USSR industrial capacity was not a match to the combined European capacity. Remember that Germany occupied and destroyed industrial centers of Ukraine and Southern Russia in 1941 and 1942. That's a huge chunk of the Soviet industrial production.
If not for the allied help, if not for Germany waging WWII on two fronts, if not for Allied carpet bombing raids, combined European industrial output would have crushed USSR.
The numbers presented by NJGOAT show that the Soviets out-produced the Germans in 1940- the year before the war broke out. When war broke out in 1941, Soviet output declined sharply for obvious reasons. They suffered huge losses and much territory. The Soviets still managed to move much of their industry behind the Urals and out of reach of the Luftwaffe which allowed them to continue to produce. In terms of producing the things that mattered to win the war- tanks, artillery, aircraft- the Soviets drastically out-produced the Germans by 3-4X.
You keep arguing this that the Germans had to fight a two front war. It was not a two-front war from 1941-1943. At that time, no western Allied power was fighting the Germans on European soil. At least 75% of German troops were fighting on the Eastern front against the Soviets. 25% of German forces were used elsewhere in Europe or kept in reserve. If you call that a two-front war, then I suppose the Soviets were fighting a two-front war as well because they had to keep 1 million troops in the Far East to guard against a Japanese invasion. The Germans also had the assistance of the Italians, Romanians, Fins, Austrians, and a number of other troop contingents during the invasion of the Soviet Union. The Axis had numerical superiority, yet they still lost. The Soviets were all alone and had nobody to assist them.
Outside of naval warfare, the Western Allies were not a major factor for Germany from 1941-1942. British fighting against Germans and Italians was limited to Africa and parts of the Middle East. The United States was preoccupied with the Japanese and offered limited troops to the African campaign. The Allied bombing campaigns did not begin until 1944 and had minimal impact on German industrial output. The war did not become a two-front war for Germany really until D-Day in 1944. The 1943 invasion of Italy was really an Italian responsibility until 1944 when Germany took over.
I posed this question to a former Soviet citizen now living in the United States. His response was that the Russian soldiers were fighting for their homeland and were willing to die fighting because they knew that behind their lines were their mothers, wives and daughters. We should never fail to appreciate the brave Russians who took on a highly disciplined German army in a war of attrition.
1. Duration of the ground war.
2. Scope of the ground war in terms or initial retreats and later advances.
3. Number of soldiers mobilized and deployed in combat arms.
4. Fighting a very capable adversary. At least until mid-1943.
5. As occurred in 1914-1918, there is a costly learning curve in conducting warfare. In the Soviet(and German) experience, the large number of soldiers involved would result in disporportionate casualties.
1. Duration of the ground war.
2. Scope of the ground war in terms or initial retreats and later advances.
3. Number of soldiers mobilized and deployed in combat arms.
4. Fighting a very capable adversary. At least until mid-1943.
5. As occurred in 1914-1918, there is a costly learning curve in conducting warfare. In the Soviet(and German) experience, the large number of soldiers involved would result in disporportionate casualties.
Other?
The purpose of the war - i.e. extermination of Russians as ethnic group.
I don't know if this has been mentioned (haven't had the time to read 35 pages), but what about the Russian (Slavic) Holocaust. It doesn't get as much attention as the Jews even though their losses were far greater. Germans wanted to wipe out the native population on occupied lands, and to built their future empire from scratch.
Slavs were thought of as inferior and disposable race. And the guerrilla resistance that civilians launched from the forests only made Germans angrier and more revengeful, because they thought of the villages as bases for the partisans.
Of ~20 million Soviet civilian casualties, 12 million were children. That makes sense because every able male between the age of 17 and 65 was enlisted into war and if killed would be counted as military. Only elderly, women and children were left behind. In those days it wasn't unusual to have 5-7 kids each per woman. Especially in the countryside, where most killings took place. In Belorus alone (which used to be a part of Soviet Union and is included in the total number) 9,000 villages and 200+ cities and towns were burned to the ground. Most of the residents were burnt alive or shot. Most of the killings took place in 1943 when Germans were retreating and they took their rage out on the civilians.
1 in 4 civilians died in Belarus, and the same rate for the rest of Soviet Union.
But it doesn't mean there weren't good Germans.
My grandma was 13 years old and she lived in small village on the border of Poland and Belorus. In the beginning of the invasion they were visited by some Germans who told them to go hide in the woods which they did for three days while Germans rolled through their village on their way to Russia.
That makes it a miracle for me to be alive, thanks to that German soldier and the fact that one of my granfathers was the only one left alive in his batallion and made it to Berlin, just like my other grandfather.
None of them ever wanted to talk about war and one of them couldn't watch war movies because it brought raw memories back to life. The only thing he talked about was the hungry homeless German children asking for bread and how the Russian soldiers shared their meals with them.
BTW if not for the war I wouldn't be alive either, because when my grandma was 16 years old, my granda marched through her village and stayed in her house for a few days, then a couple years later he came back, and they got married.
Okay. Reading some of the replies here makes me laugh a bit. We are talking about almost equal military casualties here. About 8 million on each side. What about 20 million civilians? It's funny how some people here mention Stalin sending thousands of people over minefields...what about the rest of 19.5 millions? Keep in mind that in the beggining of the war troops surrendedred because of past history. There were plenty of old time soldiers who served in the WW1. During first world war, Russian prisoners to German army were kept and treated very well. Almost all of them returned home gaining some weight. This memory played a big role in surrendering to Hitler in the first days of WW2. Back to 20 millions. If you go to Russia today and visit most major cities on western part, you will not find any building constructed prior 1945. Same for Ukrain and Belarus. Which means that they were all 100% bombed by Germans and turned into dust.
Important fact. None of the Red Army alies wanted to really help, in fact the more damage soviets take the better. Another important fact for ignorance about the part soviet played in WW2 is this. 27.000.000 overshadows the much smaller "questioned" 6.000.000 number. Everything comes down to, bad leadership, dumb people, bad equipment, ruthless Stalin. Hitler is some what lost in all of it and plays a small role.
Add the German concentration camps, killing up to 7,000,000 civilians. You also need to take into account that people did not think a little Russian population. Add the loss of hunger and cold, as was the destruction of almost everything!
Most of us in the US tend to think that America "won" the war, saving the allies after we joined the fight following the attack on Pearl Harbor.
That's the Hollywood movie version of events, and it's far from the truth.
The USSR battled the Germans toe to toe for years on the Eastern Front, while we and the Brits stayed around the periphery for a couple of years (1942-43), leaving the heavy fighting to the Red Army. Something like 75% of the casualties suffered by the Wermacht were on the Russian Front.
The scale of battles in Russia is mind-boggling, sometimes involving more than a million troops on each side in a single engagement. In the entire history of the US Army, they've only had one single encounter on that scale: the Battle of the Bulge. And our army was heavily pressed by the then depleted German army in 1944. Think of how hard the fighting would have been against a fresh, well supplied Wermacht a couple of years earlier.
No, the war in Europe was fought mostly by the Russians. We carried the load in the Pacific and defeated Japan. But it wasn't America's entry into the war that tipped the scales entirely. The combined resources of the Soviet Union and British Empire would have eventually worn the Germans down, even w/o US involvement. But the war would have lasted longer and ended in a negotiated settlement rather than an unconditional surrender.
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.
Why were WWII Soviet casualties extremely high?
