3 ms·

The Headline misses the second half of the question, "because the USSR killed 75% of German Soldiers in WW2". KIA/Casualties are just one metric. You would exp

by rkk3 5y ago

The Headline misses the second half of the question, "because the USSR killed 75% of German Soldiers in WW2". KIA/Casualties are just one metric. You would expect the long war of attrition and many Pyrrhic victories on the Eastern front to have a high cost of human life, that doesn't necessarily equate to strategic impact. The saying is... Churchill gave the time, Roosevelt gave the money and Stalin gave the Blood.

Gibbon1 5y ago
War ended with 5 million pissed off Russian Potato farmers riding into Berlin on GM trucks. Soviet Casualties were probably 10% per month for 44 months. British and American/Common Wealth causalities were not much better but only over about 9 months. Getting shot sucks no matter what uniform you were wearing.
- rkk3 5y ago
  I'm not sure the point you are making. Casualties are a metric, but not the be all end of war. Indeed the USSR was victorious despite having more deaths then every other participant put together... Obviously there are other things that matter.
  - Gibbon1 5y ago
    Behind all the statistics is a horrific amount of personal misery.
AlotOfReading 5y ago
When you account for PoWs, the numbers are more equitable. Approximately 4 and 1 million German fatalities occurred on the eastern and western fronts respectively. The USSR took a further 3m PoWs, while the US, UK, and France captured 7.6m between them according to Overmans. Along similar lines, troop distributions again reinforce that both fronts were critically important to Germany. I'm sure many people will be happy to point out the issues with both of these metrics, but the different fronts were clearly very different places.
- rkk3 5y ago
  the "75%" was quoting the original question in full from Quora. Yes they were very different fronts... modern estimates put the USSR loosing upwards of 25% of its entire population during WW2.

by rkk3 5y ago

Gibbon1 5y ago

War ended with 5 million pissed off Russian Potato farmers riding into Berlin on GM trucks. Soviet Casualties were probably 10% per month for 44 months. British and American/Common Wealth causalities were not much better but only over about 9 months. Getting shot sucks no matter what uniform you were wearing.

rkk3 5y ago
I'm not sure the point you are making. Casualties are a metric, but not the be all end of war. Indeed the USSR was victorious despite having more deaths then every other participant put together... Obviously there are other things that matter.
- Gibbon1 5y ago
  Behind all the statistics is a horrific amount of personal misery.

AlotOfReading 5y ago

When you account for PoWs, the numbers are more equitable. Approximately 4 and 1 million German fatalities occurred on the eastern and western fronts respectively. The USSR took a further 3m PoWs, while the US, UK, and France captured 7.6m between them according to Overmans. Along similar lines, troop distributions again reinforce that both fronts were critically important to Germany. I'm sure many people will be happy to point out the issues with both of these metrics, but the different fronts were clearly very different places.

rkk3 5y ago
the "75%" was quoting the original question in full from Quora. Yes they were very different fronts... modern estimates put the USSR loosing upwards of 25% of its entire population during WW2.