sashaexmo: From the National Geographic: "sixty yea

Sashka (

sashaexmo) wrote,
@ 2004-05-25 23:12:00

From the National Geographic: "sixty years since D-Day turned the tide of war against Hitler"...

Remarks like these have always made my blood boil. This time, I refused to take this placidly, and Dimka and I wrote an indignat letter to the editor. In the process of writing it, Dimka looked up some hair-raising facts (though the vague knowledge we had before was just as hair-raising). SU lost 6 times as many military personnel fighting Germany as all the other nations at war combined! 12 million to their 2 (200,000 lost by the US, I believe)! And after that this country has the audacity to usurp the victory?!

I'm really glad that we wrote that letter!

(Post a new comment)

Well...

kirillka
2004-05-26 04:28 am UTC (link)

Not that I want to usurp your desire for revenge, but the fact that USSR lot 6 times the number of people doesn't necessarily mean that the victory belongs to the USSR. The amount of losses is equally caused by usual Soviet commanders' neglect of the lives of soldiers, by the idiotic policy of Stalin right before the war, by a much greater number of German forces devoted to the Eastern front.

(Of course I do not argue your main point, I happen to agree actually. But the losses alone do not constitute a valid argument in my opinion.)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Well... shustrik 2004-05-26 01:09 pm UTC (link)
	Kirill - agreed - too many Russian soldiers died because of idiocy. But the data we cited were also: about 3.2 millions Germans died on the Easter Front. 0.3 millions Germans died fighting the Brits, the Americans, and all the others on the Western front. Here is a graphic illustration: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Well... - Strange, Zhen'ka's comment disappeared

shustrik
2004-05-27 02:55 pm UTC (link)

I used the following sources to find the casualties during WWII:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm
http://www.magweb.com/sample/sgmbn/sgm80soj.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/stats.html
http://www.waffenhq.de/specials/verluste.html (Verluste = losses (died for whatever reasons), Verwundet = wounded).
They kinda converge (as far as the number of German casualties is concerned), but I don't know how accurate they are.
Well, 3.2 million vs. 11 million it's about 1 German to every 3.5 Russian soldiers. This seems to be a viable ratio.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Well... - Strange, Zhen'ka's comment disappeared

uzheletta
2004-05-28 01:32 am UTC (link)

Dima, tam ochen' strannye cifry.
ni odin iz sitove ne daet istochnik, to chto oni "pochti" sovpadajut,
nichego ne znachit-vse mogut byt' skopirovanny iz kakogo-nibud' somnitel'nogo mesta.
esli verit' nemetskomu situ, to sovetskih poter' v vojne bylo ZNACHITEL'NO bol'she sredi mirnogo naseleniya, chem v armii.
etoto ne moglo byt', dazhe esli reshit', chto vse 6 millionov
evreev pogibli na territorii Sojuza (chto bred).
poteri byli gorazdo bol'she, i uzh konechno,
bol'she bylo poter' na peredovoj, chem sredi mirnyh zhitelej.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Well... - Strange, Zhen'ka's comment disappeared

shustrik
2004-05-28 11:01 pm UTC (link)

Zhen'ka, ne ponyal - nemetskiy site voobhse ne upominaet zhertvi sredi mirnogo naseleniya - tol'ko obshee 4islo soldat, 4islo pogibshih i 4islo ranenih.
A nas4et tsifr - mozhet oni deystvitel'no ne sovsem vernie (horoshiy vopros - gde vzyat' vernie tsifri?), no ya dumayu, 4to eti tsifri mogut bit' biased in one direction - it is possible that in reality both Germany and the USSR lots even MORE soldiers than those numbers say. This would still support our original argument: that USSR and not the allies stopped Germany in WWII.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Well... - Strange, Zhen'ka's comment disappeared

uzheletta
2004-05-28 11:25 pm UTC (link)

I agree that the right numbers would increase the losses for
both Germany and USSR.

I disagree with how you formulate it :
"ussr and not the allies won the war".
I would change it to

"Ussr with great help from allies won the war".

it was WW2 not simply GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR as we learned it.
They taught about Kursk and Stalingrad, and nothing about the importance of
D-day, or Ardenne Offensive, stopped by US army in 1944.
Here, they teach kids about D-day, and nothing about Kursk and Stalingrad.
same difference, if you think about how the information
is framed in each country.

And I agree with Marianka and Kirill--Soviet losses, while
shocking, don't really speak to the argument of which country won
the war.
Let's say that many countries have something to be REALLY PROUD OF.
Including Kursk, Stalingrad, D-day and many other battles.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Well... - Strange, Zhen'ka's comment disappeared shustrik 2004-05-29 01:07 am UTC (link)
	Agreed, the USSR with a great help of the allies has won the war. And the D-day was an important battle of WWII that further considerably weakened the German army in 1944 - after Germany's demise had been sealed at Stalingrad, Kursk, and during the following great offensives of the soviet army in 1943-1944. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Well... - Strange, Zhen'ka's comment disappeared

aphar
2004-06-01 03:26 am UTC (link)

Germany's demise had not been sealed at Stalingrad: SU suffered greater disasters both before and after Stalingrad and still came out ahead.
Kursk was an operational defeat [at least in some opinions] for SU: the casualties ratio was extremely unfavorable. Its importance was exaggerated in the Soviet historiography in the 60ies(?) precisely to counter the Western claim of importance of the D-day. During and right after the war the turning point was believed to be Dnieper (observe 4,000+ Hero Of SU for Dnieper and only 350 for Kursk - there even was a derisive term "Dnieper Hero").
I do not want to belittle the heroism of the Soviet soldiers - even though, to a certain degree, it was necessitated by the criminal incompetence of their commanders.
I do not want to discount the Soviet contribution to the victory (which was, by any account, quite formidable, and by most accounts, of major importance).
I just want to debunk some myths, both popular and government-imposed.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Well... - Strange, Zhen'ka's comment disappeared shustrik 2004-05-28 11:04 pm UTC (link)
	Zhen'ka, and according to this site: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm many more Soviet soldiers than civilians died - and about 1 million Jews died in the USSR. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Well... - Strange, Zhen'ka's comment disappeared aphar 2004-06-01 03:04 am UTC (link)
	all these links offer data but neither sources nor methodology of estimates. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Well... sashaexmo 2004-05-26 04:33 pm UTC (link)
	Sure, and we don't argue that. Obviously, the losses themselves don't indicate the victor. It's just that I was never aware of teh statistics before and they shocked me. (Reply to this) (Parent)

map_ka
2004-05-26 11:47 am UTC (link)

Let us know what comes out of it, i.e. whether NG bothers to reply. The tide of war definitely turned before D-day.

But I agree with Kirill. Remember "ni shagu nazad"? Zagradotryady? Severe punishment for being captured? Part of the reason the USSR won, was the blatant disregard for the lives of soldiers, not just exceptional military strategy. Pyrrhic victory, in other words.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	shustrik 2004-05-26 01:12 pm UTC (link)
	I totally agree with both Kirill's and Maryanka's arguments that the USSR paid too much for this victory. But the price paid for the victory is a issue different from the issue of who actually bought the victory. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	aphar 2004-05-28 03:23 am UTC (link)
	who paid more is completely irrelevant. what is relevant is who made the Germans pay more. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	shustrik 2004-05-28 10:55 pm UTC (link)
	Exactly, which is why we wrote that letter:. Germany paid in lives of its military personnel about 10 times more on the Eastern front than on the Western front. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	aphar 2004-05-30 02:44 pm UTC (link)
	this is not true. 65% of German losses were on the Eastern front (2.6 M out of 4M). note that people is not everything. what about aircraft/submarine/surface vessel losses? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

shustrik
2004-05-30 03:02 pm UTC (link)

I very much doubt these numbers. I trust German sources much more than I trust the US, the sources, or even Russian sources. Germans have no vested interest in pretending they lost many more people, transport, and ammunition on the Eastern front. Besides, if you look at the number of German divisions engaged on the Eastern vs. the Western front, the number above is just plain possible.
I agree withe the naval losses statement, though.
Still, D-day is not the day that changed the course of war.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

aphar
2004-05-30 04:29 pm UTC (link)

I don't think there was a single day that changed to course of war.
Hitler's defeat was inevitable from day one - the question was only the price and who was going to pay it (and, of course, the distribution of the spoils).
I have not seen the number which would claim that the Germans lost 90% of Wehrmacht on the Eastern front. Sokolov's offers not just numbers but sources and methodology. He appears credible.
The numers of divisions can be obviously misleading.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

sashaexmo
2004-05-31 03:24 am UTC (link)

I realise that we are striving for objectivity here, not for healing of our wounded pride. I see that everyone is trying to make sure that we don't fall victims to the Soviet propaganda, just as Americans have fallen victim to theirs. However, why are we so quick to discount EVERYTHING that we know about the war? Anyway, we'll see if we can dig up some more numbers that would satisfy the more skeptical of us.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

uzheletta
2004-06-01 03:03 am UTC (link)

Sashka and Dimka,
I 100% agree (and I think that so does Semka) that
"turning the tide of war against Hitler" is incorrect presentation of
the D-day (which was an increadible operation on its own, and strategically very important, but still not "turning the tide of war" because the tide was already in the right direction).
But I would not say anything about "usurping the victory".
I kind of came to thinking that several countries have A LOT to be
proud of (Soviets for instance, can be rightfully proud of their
soldiers' heroism), and there is not one country who can rightfully
claim the Victory for herself. I kind of think now that it was
more of a collaborative achievement.
i do think that there was one country that was damaged the most
by the war (in many aspects and respects)-USSR, but like
everybody said, that's different from claiming the Victory.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

allka
2004-05-26 03:06 pm UTC (link)

Marianka, guys, I may be totally brainwashed on the issue, or this may just be linguistic sensitivity, but... When you say "part of the reason USSR won was the blatand disregard for the lives of the soldiers", do you in any way imply that it could have been better to save the lives and lose the war? Because this is one particular was where I can't imagine a bigger catastrophy than losing it. Or did I misunderstand you? Not that I deny the idiocy of our tall men on white horses.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

sashaexmo
2004-05-26 04:38 pm UTC (link)

Alkin, if it hadn't been for the purges and the above mentioned "blatant disregard for soldiers' lives," it may have been possible to win the war with fewer losses, military and civilian. As it was, the SU won by drowning the enemy in the blood of its own people.

This, however, really was not the point we were making in the letter. We talked about the two battles - Stalingrad and Kursk Salient - which decided the course of the war. The numbers were used as a reminder of a comparative impact the war had on the USSR and the US.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	uzheletta 2004-05-28 01:34 am UTC (link)
	Sashka and Dimka, Although I agree that the victory was mainly won by Soviet Army, such comments don't really make my blood boil. here is why (I asked Semka to write it, because I'm lazy) :): http://www.podval.org/~sds/d-day.html (Reply to this) (Thread)

shustrik
2004-05-28 11:27 pm UTC (link)

Zhen'ka,
I am sorry but you have to tell Semka that the statement: "German kids learn lots of details about the German victories in 1939-1942, and then skim the rest" is about 100% wrong. I lived in Germany for 5 years, I had lots of German students friends (yesterday's school kids) and they all knew more than enough about the war and about 1942-1945 part of it. The subject of war is too serious a subject for the Germans (unlike for the Americans or even the Brits) to be treated lightly and it is taught pretty damn seriously and objectively in German schools and universities. Which is why Germans know very well what they had done and how much it cost both themselves and the world. And they are still very depressed about it.
Besides, it was hard for them not to know it - there were too many former German POWs living among them who did time in Soviet camps after the war.
As far as the casualties - Sema agreees that those numbers are controversial and I am not sure which numbers to believe. Still they show the same picture - most Germans died on the Eastern front.
I agree that Landlease was very important. Absolutely (food, cars/trucks, oil - not artillery and tanks, though) But in this case let's be consequential - let's say it the way Sema said it - brave American industry and the Soviet Soldiers won the war. NOT: America has won the war.
On the issue of the Italians: they were among the weekest armies ever. Wherever they started, Germans had to support them (Yugoslavia, Greece). So, I don't know whether succeeding the brave Italian army was such a big accomplishment.
The last German offensive (and a pretty successful one - given the circumstances) was in 1945 - when the (almost dead) Germany successfully attacked the brave US army in the battle of the Bulge.
And I agree - if D-day did not happen the war would have ended later - after may 1945. But it would have ended anyway and not in German favor. The only real reason for the D-day was the allies' fear that a wave of Stalinist communism would flood Europe. And it would have flooded the Europe if not for the second front, and for that reason (and not because it turned the tide of WWII) it was a good thing - at least several European countries remained democractic after the war.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

uzheletta
2004-06-01 03:41 am UTC (link)

agreed with almost everything, including with your interpretation the true reason for D-day.
but motives are of lesser importance.
Although the whole "turning the tide" propaganda is irritating, one should not underestimate the degree of exhaustion of the Soviet Army by 1944 though. It is not as clear as it appears now that they would have managed to finish off Hitler in 1945 - if at all. And note that each extra day of war brought more Jews gassed and a German A-bomb closer.
regardless of motives, it was really important and helpful.

minor point of disagreement--Italy:
its defeat was of at least economic importance: Italians
had pretty good industry.

but we are in agreement regarding most points :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

sashaexmo
2004-05-29 01:01 am UTC (link)

Zhen'kin, the point was not whether the USSR won the war alone or with help. It is simply a distortion of historical facts to say that "D-Day turned the tide of war against Hitler." It did not. Stalingrad and KUrsk did. Granted, the Allied help was critical to the success of the Soviet warfare. The NG's statement is a case of propaganda of the most insidious kind - it's like second skin to those who read it, which is why no one ever questions it. We hope that we can challenge that, even a little bit. Obviousy, everyone realizes that everything that has to do with the war is not black and white. Some things, however, are less grey than others. And BTW, Semka, remember your argument about political correctness and "multi-culti" as the doom of Western civilization?. Well, in that vein, why should WE be the politically-correct-concession-making-grey-area-accepting party in the face of Americans blatantly disregarding and distorting facts?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

obrazina
2004-05-29 07:15 am UTC (link)

Today morning I heard the very same cliché about "D-Day turned the tide of the war" on KQED (NPR). The first reaction was to send them email about historical truth, etc... Then I realized that I had no reliable data to support my position except "everybody knows that".
Still, it was sad to hear the words came from the quite liberal radio station. Especially at this time and at this situation. Well, I'm sure no one is 100% free from popular fallacies.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	aphar 2004-05-30 04:22 pm UTC (link)
	The importance of Kursk is greatly exagerrated. We should not accept the American distortions. We should not supplant the Alerican distions with the Soviet ones either. (Reply to this) (Parent)

uzheletta
2004-06-02 06:46 pm UTC (link)

Sashkin,
prosto skazat', chto ya soglasna vo mnogom po suti i Semka tozhe.
to est' my soglasny v tom chto "turning the tide of war against hitler" crap -eto prosto vran'e i propaganda. edinstvennoe, chto
vyzvalo nesoglasie v tvoem poste eto idea, chto amerika "usurpiruet Pobedu". Amerika sdelala do huja dlya pobedy v vojne, kotoraya dazhe ne velas' na ee territorii. i vpolne mozhet gordit'sya svoej dolej v Pobede, i dolya eta navernoe pobol'she chem nam v shkole rasskazali.
pravda, kak vsegda, gde-nibud' posredine.
vot navernoe i vsya moya (nasha) tochka zreniya.
rasskazhesh' potom, cthto vam otvetil NG.
bylo by zdorovo, esli by perestali govorit' pro "turning the tide', i zamenili eto na chto-nibud' bolee pravidvoe.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	sashaexmo 2004-06-02 08:47 pm UTC (link)
	Da uzh, eti vse oratorskie ih uprazhneniya ochen' razdrazhayut. Nesomnenno i to, chto America mnogoe sdelala dlya pobedy. No ya ne mogu otdat' eye l'vinuyu dolyu zaslugi, na chto ona tak usilenno pretenduet. Not that it needs my approval:) Anyway, Zhen'kin, ty-to kak? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	uzheletta 2004-06-03 03:16 pm UTC (link)
	a i pravil'no, Sashkin. ne bum nichego otdavat' Amerike :) my nichego. kak vasha Minnesota? my vot dumaem priehat' cherez vyhodnye, no tochnyh planov poka net. kak Mayka pereezd perensla? (Reply to this) (Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…