Nor, my friend, do I dispute you in those figures.
My point was that though certain persons posting in this forum do over-emphasise Russian casualties and readiness to accept huge losses of men, the reality is/was that Russia as a nation was just as ready and willing to accept those casualties if necessary as any nation then at war. In that, our Russian Ally was no different to us in the west.
Warm Regards, Uyraell.
With regards to Soviet casualties, I thought the western allies faced enemy forces on the western front in 1917-18 that were as large as or even slightly larger than those faced by the Soviets on the eastern front yet their casualties were considerably lower than Soviet casualties.
Also, wasnât Americas bloodies battle in the 1939-45 war the battle of the Bulge with over 19,000 combat deaths compared to around 12,520 combat deaths at Okinawa including those killed at sea.
The Bulge certainly was the bloodiest. I would also add that the Okinawa figures are skewed, as I believe the 500,000 figure is deeply mislaid. Individual US units suffered casualty rates on par with any Soviet Red Army units fighting in the EastâŚ
Does anybody have some figures in KIA for the Hutgen forest?
I found 33,000 american KIA in this website but it seems a bit high?It even speaks of 50,000 KIA for the allied side!
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_find_information_on_the_Battle_of_Hurtgen_Forest
The 33,000 figure is both killed and wounded, not âKilled In Action.â
Are you kidding?
The INSTRUMENTs of mass killing the enemy soldiers in WW2 have been seriously developed and improved since ww1.
Lets drop the Hydrogen bomb at the average European army now, and then say - hey look the death rate is higher then compared to Napoleonâs war, although the army was âslighly largerâ couple of centures ago:)
Also, wasnât Americas bloodies battle in the 1939-45 war the battle of the Bulge with over 19,000 combat deaths compared to around 12,520 combat deaths at Okinawa including those killed at sea.
I was speaking about death-rate.
In Bulger , there were 19 000 dead from over 840 000 of troops, participated in battle - 2,26%
In Okinawa , there were about 548 000 troops , 12500 died - 2,28%
Very close indeed.If to believe to official American statistic
Wiki gives 548 000 american troops total, believe it or not.
But sure just part of them has been landed at first bloodies period of assault.
At first wave i suppose the death rate was about 20-30%
I realize that, but they werenât in combat all at once. That figure must also include the US NavyâŚ
Also, the US Marines/Army were âfatâ because of the need to establish logistical areas in the island hopping campaign and use the captured aerodrome on Okinawa for what was thought to be the next phase for Operation Downfall. So many of those servicemen were not combat ground forces but were logistical specialists and whatnotâŚ
Individual combat units suffered casualty rates as high as 50% I believe. The Japanese had underground fortifications throughout the entire island that were bomb-proof and each cave/bunker/trap door had to be taken one by one or else US ground troops faced attacks in their rear areas thought to be securedâŚ
The hydrogen bomb may be better at mass killing than stuff they previously had but how was mass killing efficiency that much better in 1939-45 than in 1914-18 aside from the A-bomb? At certain points it appears that the western allies did suffer casualties in 1914-18 which if sustained would have surpassed the figures of the eastern front.
The British empire forces had over 19,000 men killed in 1 day at the Somme. If this loss rate had been sustained it would have resulted in 1,710,000 men killed over 3 months which is far higher than the fatalities suffered by the Soviets in any 3 month period. The huge casualties of this day would seem to undermine the argument about killing efficiency given that such casualties seem to have been extremely rare in 1939-45.
Well, you have a point here, but i think we canât use such simple extrapolation as 1 deay death rate to entire 3 month is not correct.
Though i heard during the defensive strategic battles or Stalingrad , both sides losed about 10 000 per day, during the almost half of year since september till febriary.
So the total absolute figures of dead was awful.
German lost endited Group army - about 600 000 plus about 200 000 of their allies, Red Army lost up to million dead.
That just support the argument that entire ww1 wasnât such a BIG like ww2.
The only SINGLE EASTERN fromt has absorbed up to 7 mln Soviets and up to 6 mln of Axis soldierâs lives( not to mention the about 20 mln of civils from all the Eastern Europe and GErmany) - more then entire ww1.
Well, sorry if I go off-topic here, but I still believe that WW1 was more important and therefore âBiggerâ in my definition. I strongly believe that without WW1, WW2 would have never occured (a second WW would have occurred some time but not the way we know it.)
In many ways, WW1 was the disaster that spawned the ultimate catastrophe, WW2. Think about what wouldnât have happened without the fall of the German Empire, the Austrio-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire.
There would have been no Soviet Russia. There would have been no Nazi Germany and therefore no Holocaust. There might not even be the unrest and war we experience in the Middle East right now.
So if anybody ever asks me which one was worse, Iâd always say WW1 - regardless of casualties.
Fully agree sir.
Yes in fact the ww2 was just a legitime consequence of ww1.
Some Asian historians think that indeed the ww1 was never stopped, it was just continied since in 1920 after the Japane attack of China till the 1939 , when European war has been started.
I have to agree with you both.
In a history essay in High School I argued that WW2 essentially began at Versailles in 1919, and that it simply took 20 years for the first shots to be fired on the European mainland.
Basically you each have expressed similar thinking to that which I employed in the essay.
I do add one distinction: I tend to think WW2 was worse if civilian casualties (whether from results of warfare or extermination camps) are considered.
I have always regarded (rightly or wrongly, Iâve never really cared about exact numbers of dead and wounded) WW1 and WW2 as broadly comparable in terms of military death tolls.
Regards, Uyraell
What I think the first day of the Somme illustrates along with some other episodes of the 1914-18 war is that the weaponry of that era certainly was capable of wrecking the sort of carnage seen on the eastern front from 1941-45 depending on the tactics used. I strongly doubt the Germans had vastly more deadly weaponry on July 1, 1916 than they did later in the war on the western front. Perhaps the Soviets could have reduced their casualties if they had used different tactics even given the weaponry available to their enemies.
A book series on BEF military operations in France and Belgium suggest that some of the casualties listed for the BEF by books like The World Crisis and Chronicle of the First World War are considerably exaggerated. For example, BEF casualties on the western front in March 1918 are given as 173,721 but it appears that the correct figure is just under 150,000. However, the casualties on July 1, 1916 seem to be widely accepted as accurate. The lack of such casualties on other days seems to be due to better tactics being used and greater caution but certainly is not a result of lack of firepower.
In fact, I have read that on August 22, 1914 the French army had 27,000 men killed in just one day. A grisly figure that if maintained would exceed Soviet casualties by an even greater amount than the Somme. Yet, the armies involved in the fighting on the western front seem to have been considerably smaller than those seen later and certainly were less than what the Soviets faced. If anyone has anymore info on French losses in 1914 than I would be interested.
Soviets actualy has redused their casualties since 40-50 in 1941 to 2-5% diring the Last desicive battles of 1944-45.
And their tactic was endeed wery flexible( say during the operation August storm , the troops were more then free in tactical maneuvres).
As well as the Germn army was much more determined harsh-managed during last month of war when Mainstan have been dismissed from his post.
When situation was suitable- the soviets all time has used the tactical possibilities in 1945.
Well, I think a lot (though far from all) came back to the fact that the Russians were pretty much chasing a defeated army by 1945.
There was no way the German army was going to win anymore, and pretty much every soldier except the most fanatical knew it. The big propaganda pushes such as âKoenigsberg wonât fallâ etc had only meager success, considering that the soldiers still had to fight against an overwhelming, well equipped and very experienced Red Army.
Add to that a lack of supplies and a German High Command under the control of a schizophrenic lunatic, and the Russians would have needed about 10 million cases of friendly fire to mess that upâŚ
Well if to eliminate the those both lunatics from Germany and USSR , the ww2 wasnât probably even began.
Even without Hitler, wouldnât the Soviets have wanted to avenge their humiliating defeat in 1917? Without the great patriotic war, the Russians might be mocked by foreigners as people prone to giving in to foreign conquerers and I would think such humiliation would be hard to endure.
You mean like the French are being mocked at the moment?
I doubt the Soviets would consider 1917 a humiliating defeat. The War was unpopular in Russia, and they didnât really âlooseâ it in their point of view. The revolutionaries decided to make peace with the Germans so that they could concentrate on their revolution.
This was of course a strategic victory for Germany, as they were able to move those troops to the West, but no real defeat for the Bolsheviks, as it was never really their war.
You are right ,Schuultz.
Actualy the russian revolution/Civil war had nothing to deal with Germany, who itself has been defeated after the ww1, moreover the Communist were glad and thankfull to germans for support of Lenin in 1917, when GErman intelligence service has delivered Lenin to Russia in the special railway-truck:).
And Bolshevics had a close ralation with GErmans ones( Erns Telman, Rosa Luksemburg and ets) untill the most moment when SD has finished them.
As for ârussian avengeâ, it was actual for âŚJapane , not for GErmany.
The Russian public oppinion has been humiliated in 1904-05 , after Russian defeat in Rusio-Japane war.The Emperial Russian military was unable to use proper the newest superior Russian fleet to reach the victory over Japane.And thatâs was a very sad sign.
Bolshevics even did focused its anti-tsar propogand.We lost the Port-Artur and Sakhalin .
So Operation August Storm ( 1945) has been determined not only by the allied agrements and friendly will to help the Chinas Communist
But and by the Russian revenge for former unfair defeat.