Terrible ...

[=38=Tatarenko]

80 per cent of men born in the Soviet Union in 1923 were dead by 1945. Aged 22 or less.

 

Also,

 

The Soviets lost twice as many people in just the Stalingrad battles as the whole UK lost in the entire war!

[ATAG_Slipstream]

Thats what happens when men are thrown into battle with no thought to casualties.

[FlatSpinMan]

That's staggering!

[MarcoRossolini]

What's more, 80% of the fighting of WWII took place on the Eastern front. (puts all the pivotal battles elsewhere into perspective)

 

And, the Soviets at the start of Stalingrad had deployed the same number of men (600,000 approx) as they would lose in the battle.

 

IIRC too 14 of the 15 bloodiest battles of either the war or history took place on the Eastern Front. 

 

 

In one of my school's history textbook, it devotes 1 quarter page to Barbarossa and ignores the rest of the fighting. Instead focusing on the Desert, the Pacific and the Western Front. IIRC the Bulge even gets a mention. 

 

"the crossing of the Dniepr incurred 100 times more casualties than D-day, but is 100 times less well known."

 

It's sad because it was the pivotal conflict of the war and nobody (outside where it was fought) remembers it... I blame Hollywood.

[Uufflakke]

80 per cent of men born in the Soviet Union in 1923 were dead by 1945. Aged 22 or less.

 

During WWII Russia suffered a lot but those numbers are heavily disputed since a very long time.

Here is a kind of overview of different numbers of casualties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union

The numbers vary between 8 million and 43 million.

[=38=Tatarenko]

Yes but that doesn't contradict the 1923 cohort figure.

[LLv44_Mprhead]

80 per cent of men born in the Soviet Union in 1923 were dead by 1945. Aged 22 or less.

 

 

 

How many of those died because of famine caused by collectivisation of farms, or where among the millions shot by the NKVD or died of hunger or sickness in prison camp?

[thx1138]

Yes but that doesn't contradict the 1923 cohort figure.

 

 

I don't want to draw this into a political front But..........

 

You have to realize that a quite a few of those 1923 aged males never got to live long enough to see the war start. Stalin did not treat his own people very well...

[LLv44_Mprhead]

I don't want to draw this into a political front But..........

 

You have to realize that a quite a few of those 1923 aged males never got to live long enough to see the war start. Stalin did not treat his own people very well...

 

Well, at least I feel that this is still in historical front, not politica. I think it's absurd that we should be able to speak about millions who died during the war, but were not allowed to mention millions who died before it.

[Uufflakke]

How many of those died because of famine caused by collectivisation of farms, or where among the millions shot by the NKVD or died of hunger or sickness in prison camp?

 

All those numbers are also mentioned in the link I added in my previous post.

KIA, POW, frostbite, starvation, Stalin's oppression, natural death and so on.

But as you can see every historian has its own numbers.

[Bearcat]

Regardless to how... dead is dead... and it is still no less sobering..

[LLv44_Mprhead]

All those numbers are also mentioned in the link I added in my previous post.

KIA, POW, frostbite, starvation, Stalin's oppression, natural death and so on.

But as you can see every historian has its own numbers.

 

I didn't have time to read the whole text, but I was under the impression that it included deaths during the war, between 1939 - 1945? I was talking abut deaths during 1920's and 30's. Terrible numbers anyways.

[Mac_Messer]

Ok the Russians won the war, topic closed.

[=38=Tatarenko]

I don't want to draw this into a political front But..........

 

You have to realize that a quite a few of those 1923 aged males never got to live long enough to see the war start. Stalin did not treat his own people very well...

 

I'm aware of that. I've lived and worked in Russia, speak Russian etc.

 

However in 1941 they would have been 18 and largely under the age groups affected by the terror (although not the Ukrainian starvation).

[thx1138]

Ok the Russians won the war, topic closed.

 

 

Against the Germans they kinda did. They inflicted more casualties on them than anyone else.

 

I'm an Ami, but I recognize that 80% or so of the fighting the Germans did was against the Russians. If Russia was not involved it would have taken the UK/Commonwealth and the USA till the late 40's to defeat them. And defeated they would have been, the outcome would never be in doubt because just like against the USSR/UK/USA, the Germans could NEVER compete against the industrial output of the USA alone or the USSR.

[DD_Arthur]

I don't want to draw this into a political front But..........

 

You have to realize that a quite a few of those 1923 aged males never got to live long enough to see the war start. Stalin did not treat his own people very well...

 

I think, as a middle-aged US citizen,  you might be in danger of bringing in your own predjudices into this. I know that might sound offensive so I'll apologise now as it's not meant to be.

 

Stalin was certainly a very great monster by any measure.  Parts of the Soviet Union were certainly treated to some quite horrific subjugation during collectivisation of agriculture during the late twenties and early thirties and the famines which followed.  Also, tens of thousands were executed during the great purges of the later thirties.  Many hundreds of thousands more were deported to Siberia or central Asia.  However, the vast majority of soviet citizens born in the early twenties - of both sexes - died during WW11.  The scale is simply staggering.

 

This trauma and loss governed Soviet foreign policy ever after.  Something we in the west mostly seemed to have overlooked.

[BraveSirRobin]

If Russia was not involved it would have taken the UK/Commonwealth and the USA till the late 40's to defeat them. 

 

Not really.  We would have nuked them.

[thx1138]

Not really.  We would have nuked them.

 

 

Yeah, probably true, after all the US developed nuclear weapons to use against Germany in the first place...

[71st_AH_Hooves]

Against the Germans they kinda did. They inflicted more casualties on them than anyone else.

 

I'm an Ami, but I recognize that 80% or so of the fighting the Germans did was against the Russians. If Russia was not involved it would have taken the UK/Commonwealth and the USA till the late 40's to defeat them. And defeated they would have been, the outcome would never be in doubt because just like against the USSR/UK/USA, the Germans could NEVER compete against the industrial output of the USA alone or the USSR.

Wasnt there talk of using nuclear weapons on germany? I imagine the end result of a loss for the Axis would still have been innevitable but imagine the loss of life. Russia had a tough bit there. But im sure without them as you said the war would have lasted well into the late 40's if not longer.

 

Though if it would have gone longer i dont think Korea would have happend.

[BraveSirRobin]

Wasnt there talk of using nuclear weapons on germany? 

 

Yes, the nukes were originally intended to be used against Germany.

[71st_AH_Hooves]

Ah i actually had not known that.

 

Another chilling part of this mass loss of people is the betrayal of the single soldier. Though ive never been in a direct fire fight. (Just shot at a suspicious bush once or twice) i cant even fathom being told i have to choose between the enemies bullets or my own contries. Its a culture that i will never understand. And holefully no one else will have to. But here is my biggest question. Quite a moral dilema, in the end is that what actually saved russia? Pushing millions into wall of lead? Or could have it been done another way?

[Axon]

If Russia was not involved it would have taken the UK/Commonwealth and the USA till the late 40's to defeat them.

 

By then US and Geramny would be both nuclear powers -  which means Mutually Assured Destruction and cold war. Hitler would die natural death in the 50-60s and Germany would ... god knows actually what it would be up to

[=38=Tatarenko]

 But here is my biggest question. Quite a moral dilema, in the end is that what actually saved russia? Pushing millions into wall of lead? Or could have it been done another way?

 

Well in the 30's Stalin killed every Deputy Commissar for war, 90% of his generals and 80% of his colonels. So if he had kept the experts and backed them instead of terrorising them, then the initial part of the war might have gone much better.

 

Another option for him would have been strategic withdrawals from cities about to be encircled instead of forcing millions to hold in the first year only to end up in German prison camps (in which they either died of starvation or joined the German Army). It is estimated that 1 in 7 of the German Army at S'grad were former Soviet soldiers, as were very many of those in the 352nd ID facing the allied landings in Normandy.

 

Finally he could have directed all his air power against the rail network in the occupied areas, reasoning that extended supply lines would be the german downfall. This would have been more effective than trying to bomb Berlin that first autumn.

 

Hindsight, eh?

Edited November 13, 2013 by =38=Tatarenko

[thx1138]

By then US and Geramny would be both nuclear powers -  which means Mutually Assured Destruction and cold war. Hitler would die natural death in the 50-60s and Germany would ... god knows actually what it would be up to

 

 

No, US nuclear weapon development was far ahead of German development. And the US would have had a longer ranged bomber to get it there first. (B 36 was intended for that role in it's conception)

[[JG54]Vyper]

When I started playing the game "Gary Grigsby's War in the East: The German-Soviet War 1941-1945" almost 3 years ago, my military history interest turned to the Eastern Front. It is amazing what westerners haven't learned about the war, for a variety of reasons. One of the most mind blowing stats I first read was that in the siege of Leningrad alone, more Soviet civilians died than all of the US and British deaths combined for the entire war. There are a number of great books and documentaries made after 1990 when the iron curtain fell allowing western historians access to vets which give a real view of what that war cost. It is staggering.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Not really.  We would have nuked them.

 

 

Indeed.   There is no way we or our Allies would stand for another year or years of war at that point in time.

[DD_Arthur]

But here is my biggest question. Quite a moral dilema, in the end is that what actually saved russia? Pushing millions into wall of lead? Or could have it been done another way?

 

Could it have been done another way?  That's a very big question Hooves, lol.   The short answer is.....yes.  However, I don't think this forum has the bandwidth or patience for a proper discussion.

[71st_AH_Hooves]

Could it have been done another way?  That's a very big question Hooves, lol.   The short answer is.....yes.  However, I don't think this forum has the bandwidth or patience for a proper discussion.

Lol agreed. Someone eventually come in and disagree just to disagree. But learning about the eastern front has been pretty amazing. An entire conflict practically never taught in any schools other than college. And even then in my college history classes we never got so much as a slight mentioning. Sad really humanity can learn do much from such tradgedy

[dkoor]

It wasn't that clear really.

If war has taken some other course, question is who would nuke who.

[BraveSirRobin]

It wasn't that clear really.

If war has taken some other course, question is who would nuke who.

 

Germany never made any serious effort to build nukes.

[71st_AH_Hooves]

Germany never made any serious effort to build nukes.

I thought that they were trying but lacked the "heavy water" to accomplish the task. Seems to me i remember watching a documentary on a mission that sank a boat carrying such supplies.

 

Admittedly i know next to nothing on germany's nuke plans.

[CIA_Yankee_]

I thought that they were trying but lacked the "heavy water" to accomplish the task. Seems to me i remember watching a documentary on a mission that sank a boat carrying such supplies.

 

Admittedly i know next to nothing on germany's nuke plans.

 

I suggest reading The First War Of Physics... an excellent book on the atom bomb development process from all countries involved (including germany). I found it quite illuminating.

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-First-War-Physics-1939-1949/dp/1605981974

 

In short, no, the Germans didn't put that much effort into it. It was ruled as too much of a long term project to be useful to the war. And really, given the resources it took the Americans to build their own (with British and Canadian assistance), it was the right call. You really needed the USA's ludicrous resources to pull it off in the time they did.

 

Thank you.

[dkoor]

Lol agreed. Someone eventually come in and disagree just to disagree. But learning about the eastern front has been pretty amazing. An entire conflict practically never taught in any schools other than college. And even then in my college history classes we never got so much as a slight mentioning. Sad really humanity can learn do much from such tradgedy

You are right.

To be honest, I don't really think that one can rely on school history too much.

It's always best to read between the lines with open mind.

[Brano]

Well in the 30's Stalin killed every Deputy Commissar for war, 90% of his generals and 80% of his colonels. So if he had kept the experts and backed them instead of terrorising them, then the initial part of the war might have gone much better.

 

Another option for him would have been strategic withdrawals from cities about to be encircled instead of forcing millions to hold in the first year only to end up in German prison camps (in which they either died of starvation or joined the German Army). It is estimated that 1 in 7 of the German Army at S'grad were former Soviet soldiers, as were very many of those in the 352nd ID facing the allied landings in Normandy.

 

Finally he could have directed all his air power against the rail network in the occupied areas, reasoning that extended supply lines would be the german downfall. This would have been more effective than trying to bomb Berlin that first autumn.

 

Hindsight, eh?

 

This is common ''urban legend'' about Stalin cleansings of 30s.In fact it was just ordinary gangsta war.One group were supporters of Stalin,veterans of Russian Civil War from 1st Cavalry Army.Second group were supporters of Trockyi,formal members of Kozak Cavalry Army.Stalin gained an upper hand in this struggle,got rid of Trockyi (he was later assasinated in exile in Mexico) and also got rid of all of his supporters.Standard procedure amongst such sociopathic groups.

And in fact,we can say,that ''smaller evil'' won over ''great evil'' in USSR as Trockyi was fanatic promoting so called ''permanent revolution'' trying to form society based on total slave work. Stalin was kind of restrained in this matters and quite pragmatic.And if you study a bit more in this field,you will find that majority of those ''executed marshals,generals,commisars...'' were total idiots,sadists an largely uncompetent to take their stand.But thats another story.

 Nevertheless casualities on Soviet side were huge and their stand against Germans is unrivaled in history and I dare to say it will never be overcome.For that they have my sincere gratitude.

[Cybermat47]

The Soviets would've lost if the Allies hadn't supplied them from the Arctic Ocean.

 

Hitler's only hope for victory was the U-boat, and he ignored them.

[LLv44_Mprhead]

This is common ''urban legend'' about Stalin cleansings of 30s.In fact it was just ordinary gangsta war.One group were supporters of Stalin,veterans of Russian Civil War from 1st Cavalry Army.Second group were supporters of Trockyi,formal members of Kozak Cavalry Army.Stalin gained an upper hand in this struggle,got rid of Trockyi (he was later assasinated in exile in Mexico) and also got rid of all of his supporters.Standard procedure amongst such sociopathic groups.

And in fact,we can say,that ''smaller evil'' won over ''great evil'' in USSR as Trockyi was fanatic promoting so called ''permanent revolution'' trying to form society based on total slave work. Stalin was kind of restrained in this matters and quite pragmatic.And if you study a bit more in this field,you will find that majority of those ''executed marshals,generals,commisars...'' were total idiots,sadists an largely uncompetent to take their stand.But thats another story.

 

Any sources for that? Not the Trotsky being also monster part, but the rest.

[DD_Arthur]

The Soviets would've lost if the Allies hadn't supplied them from the Arctic Ocean.

 

I think you might be putting the Australian school's history curriculum under some severe pressure with a statement like that Cybermat  .   The truly critical times for the Soviet Union were between June '41 and January '42.  By the time the Wehrmacht were halted before Moscow they had shot their bolt.  Allied supplies of tanks and aircraft at this time made no material difference to the outcome.  Later and much vaster supplies of raw materials, industrial plant, trucks, boots and tinned food speeded up the inevitable by months if not years and saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of British, American and Canadian troops who would otherwise have faced a much stronger foe on the beaches of Normandy.

 

Any sources for that? Not the Trotsky being also monster part, but the rest.

 

Its an essentially correct account of what happened.  By the early thirties Stalin felt himself strong enough in his position to wipe out the only possible threats to his powerbase.  If you cast aside the ideology you are left with the essentials; the final act in a power grab.   

[71st_AH_Hooves]

I suggest reading The First War Of Physics... an excellent book on the atom bomb development process from all countries involved (including germany). I found it quite illuminating.

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-First-War-Physics-1939-1949/dp/1605981974

 

In short, no, the Germans didn't put that much effort into it. It was ruled as too much of a long term project to be useful to the war. And really, given the resources it took the Americans to build their own (with British and Canadian assistance), it was the right call. You really needed the USA's ludicrous resources to pull it off in the time they did.

 

Thank you.

cheers ill take a look!

[Rjel]

I've read many times that the Soviets could have defeated Nazi Germany without any involvement from the U.S. But mostly those comments are internet based, not real fact based studies. It's hard for me to imagine honestly, given the technological edge displayed by the Germans. Without the massive bombing suffered by German industry in the mid and late war years, how much bigger would that edge have been? Without Germany having to fight in Italy, (as it is hard to imagine Britain landing in Italy without the same U.S. involvement) wouldn't a lot of those German forces been sent East?

 

Could someone point me towards either an honest authoritative study or even a thought provoking what if type of book that details whether or not the Soviets could have defeated Germany alone?

[LLv44_Mprhead]

 

Its an essentially correct account of what happened.  By the early thirties Stalin felt himself strong enough in his position to wipe out the only possible threats to his powerbase.  If you cast aside the ideology you are left with the essentials; the final act in a power grab.   

 

Maybe, but I would still like to see sources. And same goes with "Soviet Union would have defeated Germany without help from Western allies." It is possible, but I wouldn't say it's certain. At the time of Battle of Stalingrad things were still hanging pretty much in balance and if Uranus had failed it could have had quite devastating effect to soviets. And at that time help from West was already a factor.