Politics

[mark-hunter]

Unfortunately for the Soviets, their biggest resource toward the war effort was expendable soldiers.

Dave, what makes you say this?
From what source this comes?

 

[Ray B]

there is another aspaect to the ending of the war. USSR had completed their efforts on their Western Front and were focusing on Japan- They declared war on Japan and had attacked the northern islands. Without the second bomb and ending of the war, USSR would have continued its assault south, gaining a large portion of the main islands possibly even Tokyo. Whatever they did gain militarily would have remaining under soviet control just as eastern Europe and North Korea. Whatever the case, Japan's future would have been vastly different with a situation similar to the Koreas.

 

[BSO Dave]

Dave, what makes you say this?
From what source this comes?

Just stating a simple fact that the Soviets suffered the most military casualties than any other nation involved in WW2. The Soviets lost an estimated 8.5-11.5 million soldiers during the war. That is an astounding body count compared to the casualties of the other nations involved.

The Soviet Army was for the most part, dominated by the German Army in nearly every resource except for numbers. They didn't have the equipment, the weaponry, or the the technology to match the Germans. The one thing they did have was bodies to put on the battlefields.

These stats are no secret.. You can Google the numbers for yourself... Almost every source on the internet states similar numbers...

 

[Red Leg]

Just stating a simple fact that the Soviets suffered the most military casualties than any other nation involved in WW2. The Soviets lost an estimated 8.5-11.5 million soldiers during the war. That is an astounding body count compared to the casualties of the other nations involved.

The Soviet Army was for the most part, dominated by the German Army in nearly every resource except for numbers. They didn't have the equipment, the weaponry, or the the technology to match the Germans. The one thing they did have was bodies to put on the battlefields.

These stats are no secret.. You can Google the numbers for yourself... Almost every source on the internet states similar numbers...

They also fought the Germans in ground combat far longer and in far greater numbers than the Western allies. On 22 June 41 the German armed forces committed 3.7 million men to the Eastern Front - roughly 80% of its armed forces. By May of 44 with the invasion of France imminent and after three years of horrific casualties, the Germans still had 2.4 million committed in the East representing nearly 70% of its surviving armed forces. The Western Allies never faced such odds, and Soviet casualties reflect that level of combat (as do German in the East).

I also don’t get this pervasive Western arrogance about the quality of Russian equipment. The T34 series of tanks came as a nasty surprise to the Wehrmacht - a surprise that wasn’t matched until the advent of the Panther and even then, the Panther was far less reliable than the T34. I should add, it was largely responsible for almost running the US Army off the Korean Peninsula during the North Korean invasion until we could get modern anti-tank weapons and post-war medium tanks deployed to match it. And of course the Soviets also deployed a series of heavy tanks that easily matched the Tiger.

The West never deployed a ground attack aircraft with the capability of the Stormavik and the Soviets produced more than 40,000 of those during the war. The La 7 fighter was as good as any piston powered aircraft flown by any air force during the war.

By the end of the war, Soviet infantrymen were armed with more semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons than any other Army but The US - and had proportionately more fully automatic.

Yes, the Soviet Armed Forces were unprepared for the German onslaught in ‘41, and paid for it with terrible casualties. That relative combat power ratio gradually flipped, and by the battle Kursk, the largest armored engagement in history, the Wehrmacht was beaten and sent into a retreat that ended in Berlin.

None of that negates the roll of the Western Allies. Without the invasions of North Africa, Italy, and France, and the Anglo American strategic bombing campaign, the War would have gone on much longer at least, and likely would have had a different outcome.

 

[sgt_zim]

Just stating a simple fact that the Soviets suffered the most military casualties than any other nation involved in WW2. The Soviets lost an estimated 8.5-11.5 million soldiers during the war. That is an astounding body count compared to the casualties of the other nations involved.

The Soviet Army was for the most part, dominated by the German Army in nearly every resource except for numbers. They didn't have the equipment, the weaponry, or the the technology to match the Germans. The one thing they did have was bodies to put on the battlefields.

These stats are no secret.. You can Google the numbers for yourself... Almost every source on the internet states similar numbers...

The best example of that is the Battle of Kursk. Germany had about 50K KIA, the Red Army had about 500K KIA. And Kursk was a victory for the Red Army.

The numbers were much closer at Stalingrad - total Axis KIA was around 800K, total Red Army KIA was about 1.1 million. Again, a victory for the Red Army

 

[Red Leg]

Just stating a simple fact that the Soviets suffered the most military casualties than any other nation involved in WW2. The Soviets lost an estimated 8.5-11.5 million soldiers during the war. That is an astounding body count compared to the casualties of the other nations involved.

The Soviet Army was for the most part, dominated by the German Army in nearly every resource except for numbers. They didn't have the equipment, the weaponry, or the the technology to match the Germans. The one thing they did have was bodies to put on the battlefields.

These stats are no secret.. You can Google the numbers for yourself... Almost every source on the internet states similar numbers...

When critically evaluating the second WW in the East, it is important to remember that is the one post enlightenment conflict where the victors didn't write the history. With the end of the war and the fast eroding relations between the Soviet Union and the West, it was German literature that created the historical research material for the war in Russia. Manstein's "Lost Victories" is probably the most famous of these memoires, and they have largely shaped how the West thought about the war in the East for nearly three generations. Needless to say, they have created the belief that German military professionalism was only defeated by hordes of Asiatic peasant soldiers and the incompetence of Hitler. Only in the last decade or so have histories begun to be written that provide a more balanced understanding of the war in the East. Brit Buttar's "The Reckoning" is an example of such new analysis.

 

[sgt_zim]

They also fought the Germans in ground combat far longer and in far greater numbers than the Western allies. On 22 June 41 the German armed forces committed 3.7 million men to the Eastern Front - roughly 80% of its armed forces. By May of 44 with the invasion of France imminent and after three years of horrific casualties, the Germans still had 2.4 million committed in the East representing nearly 70% of its surviving armed forces. The Western Allies never faced such odds, and Soviet casualties reflect that level of combat (as do German in the East).

I also don’t get this pervasive Western arrogance about the quality of Russian equipment. The T34 series of tanks came as a nasty surprise to the Wehrmacht - a surprise that wasn’t matched until the advent of the Panther and even then, the Panther was far less reliable than the T34. I should add, it was largely responsible for almost running the US Army off the Korean Peninsula during the North Korean invasion until we could get modern anti-tank weapons and post-war medium tanks deployed to match it. And of course the Soviets also deployed a series of heavy tanks that easily matched the Tiger.

The West never deployed a ground attack aircraft with the capability of the Stormavik and the Soviets produced more than 40,000 of those during the war. The La 7 fighter was as good as any piston powered aircraft flown by any air force during the war.

By the end of the war, Soviet infantrymen were armed with more semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons than any other Army but The US - and had proportionately more fully automatic.

Yes, the Soviet Armed Forces were unprepared for the German onslaught in ‘41, and paid for it with terrible casualties. That relative combat power ratio gradually flipped, and by the battle Kursk, the largest armored engagement in history, the Wehrmacht was beaten and sent into a retreat that ended in Berlin.

None of that negates the roll of the Western Allies. Without the invasions of North Africa, Italy, and France, and the Anglo American strategic bombing campaign, the War would have gone on much longer at least, and likely would have had a different outcome.

The one thing I would say about the USSR is, much like Germany, they brought much of their misery on themselves. Stalin was no more married to von Ribbentrop than Hitler was. Hitler merely violated it before Stalin had a chance to. And Russia was every bit the aggressor as Germany was, they just ended up against each other.

And after the war, the Russians used their industrial muscle for building more tanks and planes instead of building tractors and improving roads.

 

[Red Leg]

The best example of that is the Battle of Kursk. Germany had about 50K KIA, the Red Army had about 500K KIA. And Kursk was a victory for the Red Army.

The numbers were much closer at Stalingrad - total Axis KIA was around 800K, total Red Army KIA was about 1.1 million. Again, a victory for the Red Army

I think your German casualty numbers are about right for the battle of Kursk, but I think most current estimates of Russian casualties were a little more than 150,000.

 

[Red Leg]

The one thing I would say about the USSR is, much like Germany, they brought much of their misery on themselves. Stalin was no more married to von Ribbentrop than Hitler was. Hitler merely violated it before Stalin had a chance to. And Russia was every bit the aggressor as Germany was, they just ended up against each other.

And after the war, the Russians used their industrial muscle for building more tanks and planes instead of building tractors and improving roads.

Yes. For instance, the cold-blooded partition of Poland and subsequent actions by both states within Poland's borders throughout the war would make choosing the least worst problematic.

 

[sgt_zim]

I think your German casualty numbers are about right for the battle of Kursk, but I think most current estimates of Russian casualties were a little more than 150,000.

Trying to remember where I got that number. All I am able to find now with casual searching is total casualty numbers, which were ~800K Red Army and ~200K Axis

Even at "only" 150K KIA, that's stacking bodies like cordwood for a 6 week battle.

 

[Red Leg]

Trying to remember where I got that number. All I am able to find now with casual searching is total casualty numbers, which were ~800K Red Army and ~200K Axis

Even at "only" 150K KIA, that's stacking bodies like cordwood for a 6 week battle.

True

 

[BSO Dave]

I also don’t get this pervasive Western arrogance about the quality of Russian equipment.

I certainly wasn't trying to purvey "Western arrogance". I was simply relaying much of what I have read... There are several sources that suggest the technology and quality of hardware possessed by the Germans was superior to that of the Soviets especially early on in the war. That being said, I would bow to your better knowledge on the subject. If this was not the case, and the Soviet's possessed weaponry as good or even better than the Germans, what is your take on why the casualties were so heavy and disproportionate towards the Red Army?

 

[Opposite Pole]

Yes. For instance, the cold-blooded partition of Poland and subsequent actions by both states within Poland's borders throughout the war would make choosing the least worst problematic.

My grandmother, who lived through WWII, said that when Germans invaded, it was a war, but when the Red Army invaded, it was a terrible war. This is coming from someone who lived through her village been invaded by the nazis. who rounded up all its people, following which an SS officer picked all men whom he deemed able to carry weapons and had them all executed on the spot, in front of the women and children.

As for the “liberation” of Poland provided by the Soviet Union, well, I hope none of us, or our loved ones have to ever experience such a thing.

 

[Red Leg]

I certainly wasn't trying to purvey "Western arrogance". I was simply relaying much of what I have read... There are several sources that suggest the technology and quality of hardware possessed by the Germans was superior to that of the Soviets especially early on in the war. That being said, I would bow to your better knowledge on the subject. If this was not the case, and the Soviet's possessed weaponry as good or even better than the Germans, what is your take on why the casualties were so heavy and disproportionate towards the Red Army?

Leadership - through Stalingrad.

Stalin, for his own paranoia induced reasons, had purged the Red Army of much of its more capable regimental commanders and above in the years prior to the German invasion. The bumbling Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939 gave a preview of how things were likely going to turn out if Russia faced a more equal foe.

On the other hand, the German Army that stepped off into the vastness of Russia in '41 probably had the best tactical leadership of any land force since Napoleon's Grande Armee between 1804 and 1809. It would be able to sustain that leadership edge generally for two years (the surviving SS Panzer divisions almost through the end of the war).

The Russians did indeed trade both space and infantry for time as it rebuilt not only its ground forces structure, but also gained the time to redevelop the tactical leadership that could effectively go over to the offensive in the winter campaigns of 42/43 and 43/44 leading to the massive armored a motorized invasion of Eastern Europe and eventually Germany in 1944 and the spring of 45.

And I wasn't accusing you of arrogance personally, and if it came across that way, I sincerely apologize. But that pervasive Western view of Soviet materiel being of great quantity and low quality colored every history of the Eastern campaigns for an awfully long time. By the end of the war, Soviet Guard infantry and tank formations were as well equipped as any comparative American unit and had more motorized transport (especially for artillery) than their German foes ever possessed. I would not have wanted to be in a tank duel with a T34 while in a Sherman.

 

[mdwest]

Five Oregon Counties Vote to Secede and Join Idaho

Five rural Oregon counties voted on Tuesday to secede from the state of Oregon and join the state of Idaho. | Idaho

www.breitbart.com

Not sure if this really means anything or will lead to an end result that would be valuable... but.. its interesting..

 

[WAB]

Five Oregon Counties Vote to Secede and Join Idaho

Five rural Oregon counties voted on Tuesday to secede from the state of Oregon and join the state of Idaho. | Idaho

www.breitbart.com

Not sure if this really means anything or will lead to an end result that would be valuable... but.. its interesting..

Are they legally able to do that?

 

[sgt_zim]

Five Oregon Counties Vote to Secede and Join Idaho

Five rural Oregon counties voted on Tuesday to secede from the state of Oregon and join the state of Idaho. | Idaho

www.breitbart.com

Not sure if this really means anything or will lead to an end result that would be valuable... but.. its interesting..

This has been brewing for a while. More power to them, but I think their efforts will not be successful. The reason is the state legislatures of Oregon and Cali would have to permit those counties to leave. One thing we know about die-hard statists is they're not going to give up power for any reason. Their way is The Right Way, and you're going to do it like you've got religion about it, or suffer the consequences.

From Art IV Sec 3 of the US constitution
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

 

[sgt_zim]

Are they legally able to do that?

It's constitutional, though it has never been legally done.

WV "seceded" from VA during the Civil War, and obtained statehood in spite of the VA legislature never approving the secession.

 

[jeanes]

Didn't West Virginia do something similar, forming a separate state rather than being annexed?

 

[bowjijohn]

Democracy

How long ago did it start?

Greece - 10 years
England - 1 hour
France - 45 minutes
USA - quarter of an hour
The rest of the European nations - 2 minutes

Don' take democracy and freedom for granted