Casualties on the Eastern Front

[Гражданин СССР]

It is a common misunderstanding in the west that Soviet soldiers were dying in packs and much more of them died then of their opponents. That is simply not true. The people who claim that Soviet soldiers were unable to fight are ignorant because they only take into account German casualties while many other nations also sided with Germany on the eastern front. Infact the following nations all had units on the eastern front:

Finland, Romania, Bulgaria, Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Slovakia, Norway, Netherlands, Danes, Belgium, France and Spain.

Lets take an example of a major battle and casualties, for example battle of Stalingrad. The common belief is that germans lost the city for around 250000 (383000 actualy) dead or missing while costing the soviets anythere from 750000 to 1.1 million dead or missing. This sort of hiding of facts is what propels some people to believe that Red Army was ineffective. However this 250000 figure forgets to take into account the 5000 Croatians, 173000 Romanians, 146000 Hungarians and 105000 Italians, all of whom died or went missing at the battle of Stalingrad. If you add all these numbers up you will see that Red Army was infact effective at dealing great casualties on its enemies.

This is just one example of many, others include the winter offensive of 1943 (825000 invader casualties, 750000 Soviet Casualties) and the Belorussian offensive (600000 Soviet casualties, 825000 invader casualties), amongst many others.

So as you can see the notion that Soviet soldiers could not fight is a misunderstanding on the part of Western education system.

 

[Undead Cheese]

Let's look at total military deaths (excluding civilian).

Soviet Union: 13,600,000

vs.

Germany: 3,250,000
Rumania: 200,000
Bulgaria: 10,000
Italy: 330,000
Hungary: 120,000
Austria: 230,000
Finland: 90,000
TOTAL: 4,230,000

So ... 13,600,000 vs. 4,230,000. Don't forget that the axis numbers include casualties inflicted in Africa and on the Western front, so the Soviet Union isn't looking too good - at the very best having a 3:1 death ratio. However, some sources put soviet military deaths as low as 8,000,000, but even then it's still a 2:1 ratio.

 

[Гражданин СССР]

First of all your numbers are wrong.

Germany: 3350000
Romania: 300000
Bulgaria: 56000
Italy: 330000
Hungary: 197000
Austria: 380000
Finland: 57000

Total: 4670000

This is not counting deaths of hundreds of thousands of hiwis (Soviet citizens fighting on the German side, by 1942 they composed 1/10th of the German ground force). Also the most corect number of Soviet casualties is around 10 million and thats from 1939 to 1949, including casualties from anti-partisan warfare, fighting in Manchuria, accidents, starvation, etc. Also a lot of casualties were due to the initial surprise attack by the Germans and the higher casualty rates later in the war were due to Germans falling back on their supply lines. However as i have demonstrated Red Army has inflicted higher casualties then it suffered in several of very important campaigns. If everything is put together and into perspective the casualty exchange rate is less then 2:1, and even that is only because of the initial surprise attack which cost the soviets 2700000 dead and 3800000 captured. This was mostly due to the fact that on June 22 3/4ths of Soviet armored forces were undergoing repairs and a lot of the airforce was undergoing maintenance and awaiting spair parts. The Germans caught us off-guard and dealt high casualties right away. This doesn't reflect on ability of Red Army to fight then its structuraly stable.

 

[Undead Cheese]

First of all your numbers are wrong.

No, different sources believe in the validity of different numbers, but overal the differentiation between them isn't that great.

 

[Гражданин СССР]

Well 3 mil seems like a lot to me. Anyways my point is that Red Army was capable of inflicting great casualties on its enemies at a cost of fewer casualties for themselves. I prooved that beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[Laharl]

Fact: The Soviet union was defending their country, they were facing invasion. What did we, North Americans face? Nothing. Even if they suffered more deaths it's understandable.

 

[betaalpha5]

from what i could recall stalin knew about the invasion however he didn't do anything for fear that japan might enter the war forcing russia to fight on 2 fronts. but

 

[N[U]TS]

First of all your numbers are wrong.

Germany: 3350000
Romania: 300000
Bulgaria: 56000
Italy: 330000
Hungary: 197000
Austria: 380000
Finland: 57000

Total: 4670000

.

how about you provide us with a link showing where you got this info from before you bash at some one else saying they are wrong.:tnt

 

[Гражданин СССР]

I got them from a book and got backing from several other books. The book i got them from originally is actually written in english its called "World War II: Nation by Nation" by J. Lee Ready. Yes the figures Undead Cheese presented are infact incorrect.

 

[Undead Cheese]

Yes the figures Undead Cheese presented are infact incorrect.

They are not incorrect, and I can honestly say you're a dumbass if you think that. Different sources believe in the validity of different numbers. For example, I have two sources that agree with the numbers that I provided. I also have other sources that agree on numbers different than the ones I posted, but they're still different than the ones that you provided. Often times the records that countries kept during that time, if they did at all, were inaccurate and force historians to make a best guess, and, since there's multiple historians around who argue for different numbers based on the evidence, there's different figures around. A lot of the time the sources will even say that different people believe in different numbers. But, at the end of the day, who the **** cares when the difference after totaling up seven countries is only in the thousands of people, considering the total is in the millions on both sides?

 

[N[U]TS]

All iv got to say is we let the red army "bleed" and yall rightfully deserved it. We felt sympathy for yall and slowed our attack in taking berlin so yall could take some of it.

 

[Гражданин СССР]

Nuts you don't know what the hell you are talking about. First of all Red Army did not deserve to "bleed" as you put it, nobody "bled" there was a series of campaigns and while in the west (facing a minority of German troops) US backed up with Brits and whoever else was able to take one offensive at a time with breaks in the East that was not true, Red Army never had a break and the results are evidient. They moved much faster then the Westerners, infact Red Army got within 50 kilometers of Berlin before Western troops got within 70 kilometers of it. You felt sorry for us? God, and you got that southern redneck thing going on with the way you speak, you do not know what you are talking about thats evidient.

Now this is strange, my post gets deleted but a post by Nuts doesn't and neither does the post by Undead Cheese. Double standards Tipsy? You mistaken if you don't think that i am going to complain to proper people.

 

[Zerglite]

the final result is the same no matter how many people died

Germany was defeated.

 

[N[U]TS]

Nuts you don't know what the hell you are talking about. First of all Red Army did not deserve to "bleed" as you put it, nobody "bled" there was a series of campaigns and while in the west (facing a minority of German troops) US backed up with Brits and whoever else was able to take one offensive at a time with breaks in the East that was not true, Red Army never had a break and the results are evidient. They moved much faster then the Westerners, infact Red Army got within 50 kilometers of Berlin before Western troops got within 70 kilometers of it. You felt sorry for us? God, and you got that southern redneck thing going on with the way you speak, you do not know what you are talking about thats evidient.

Now this is strange, my post gets deleted but a post by Nuts doesn't and neither does the post by Undead Cheese. Double standards Tipsy? You mistaken if you don't think that i am going to complain to proper people.

lol i dont know what im talking about...thats rich. and just because i have a southern draw makes me less intelegent? ill take what my professor has to say over what you have to say. Mind you he has his Dr.'s in history.

 

[Гражданин СССР]

Well lets see, you have not listed a single fact only your wrongly motivated opinion, that gives an impression that you don't know what the hell you are talking about, the southern draw is just the icing on the cake.

You mentioned some sort of a professor, well obviously you either didn't listen much in his class or you go to one of those US southern universities that lack ability to educate anyone. My argument is based on books written by people with PhD's from places like Harvard in addition i go to MGU, which is much better then whatever hick school you come from. The end remains clear, you provided no facts to support your arguments.

 

[N[U]TS]

You mentioned some sort of a professor, well obviously you either didn't listen much in his class or you go to one of those US southern universities that lack ability to educate anyone. My argument is based on books written by people with PhD's from places like Harvard in addition i go to MGU, which is much better then whatever hick school you come from. The end remains clear, you provided no facts to support your arguments.

cool you go to a college i have never heard off...isnt that just great? My history professor is a author himself....on top of that he has his Dr's... mind you i listen very well it is the fact i procrastinate when it comes to studying

My argument is based on books written by people with PhD's from places like Harvard

wow i see you pulled that out of your butt i highly doubt you take the time to see who wrote the book much less know where they graduated from



here you go..this is over how we let the red army bleed.

"The Soviets had managed this tremendous feat despite many a betrayal by the Allied forces. The second front which had to land in 1942 to attack the Nazis form the West was deliberately postponed by the British and the Americans with a view that the Germans and Soviets would bleed themselves to death and they shall enter the picture to claim victory!"

link
http://pd.cpim.org/2004/0822/08222004_sitaram.htm

iit has a little spin on it. since we the americans came into the war late...in theory the ussr and GB had more say so as to how we should go about doing things so we end up doing operation torch...not that effective and not untill june 6 1944 we finally did the invation of normandy "d-day" "operation overloard" which was an effective attack on the western front.

D-day link
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq109-1.htm


well there you go...you be sure to enjoy that icing on the cake..ya hear? lmao

 

[Гражданин СССР]

Eh? What exactly does this proove? That you agree with an OPINION of the author of that article? I don't disagree that purhapse the americans did wait because they wanted to limit their own casualties (increasing Soviet casualties as a byproduct, however the term "bleed" is still largely inappropriet. But my agreeing is simply my own opinion), however your statement that we "rightfully deserved it" or that you "felt sorry for us" is completely ridiculus, invasion of Normandy in 1944 was not essential for the defeat of Germany. In addition i highly doubt that US could have invaded in 1942, maybe you heard of such a thing called logistics, maybe not, well anyways it is very probable that in 1942 US didn't have enough force to punch through in Normandy.

As for my university, MGU has ratings (depending on the source) 10th-17th best university in Europe. In addition i really will not take your "proffesor's" (You can buy a diploma in Mexico for 50 bucks can't you?) word above what i read in books written by aclaimed authors from both East and West.

 

[N[U]TS]

In addition i highly doubt that US could have invaded in 1942, maybe you heard of such a thing called logistics, maybe not, well anyways it is very probable that in 1942 US didn't have enough force to punch through in Normandy.

as i pointed out earlier we did not have say so in the war since we came in late. So we went along with USSR and GB sugguestions. as an end result we did operation torch july of 1942.
link
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWtorch.htm

I don't disagree that purhapse the americans did wait because they wanted to limit their own casualties (increasing Soviet casualties as a byproduct, however the term "bleed" is still largely inappropriet

no it is appropriet...because that is exactly what we did we let yall bleed. as an end result we slow our advance and yall get to berlin before we do.

invasion of Normandy in 1944 was not essential for the defeat of Germany.

I would like to hear your reasons as to why it was not? since it led to the battle of the bulge taking out the greman reservs allowing yall to advance on the eastern front.

"The German losses in the battle were critical in several respects: the last of the German reserves were now gone; the Luftwaffe had been broken; and the German army in the West was being pushed back. Most importantly, the Eastern Front was now ripe for the taking. In the East, the German army was unable to halt the Soviet juggernaut. German forces were sent reeling on two fronts and never recovered."



link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge#Aftermath



and before you start critisizing where i get my info from....how about you back your information.... im taking the time to find this info on the net now how about you do the same.

oh and are you enjoying that icing? because there is plenty more from where that came from

:corn

 

[Laharl]

If the Americans took their time in entering the war, then you are more cowardly than I previously believed.

Thanks.

 

[N[U]TS]

If the Americans took their time in entering the war, then you are more cowardly than I previously believed.

Thanks.

ok? do you know the reason why American entered the war?

and what would taking their time entering the war have anything to do with me being cowardly?