5 ms·

Nice way to start a WWII article "Those who forget the past are liable to trip over it." Especially considering that "the past" doesn't exist and that history

Nice way to start a WWII article "Those who forget the past are liable to trip over it." Especially considering that "the past" doesn't exist and that history is written by winners. It changes according to current political needs and in this specific case western history is us-centric and russians were just "passing-by" when in fact it was mainly thanks to the russians that germany was defeated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties Casualties says it all. Related to the article: These japanese bombs are surely interesting for geeks but saying "evil geniuses" is a bit overstating as, to me, they seem as a desperate attempt to hurt US inland. My2cents

viggity 12y ago
I won't take a definite stance, but would probably agree with you that the USSR had a bigger role defeating Germany than the US/UK. However, I would contend that "casualties says it all" is the wrong way to look at it. The Russians liked to send humans into the meat grinder ill equipped to deal with war (ex. having two soldiers share a rifle during the battle of Stalingrad). I haven't looked, but it would be more interesting to see total german casualties on the western and eastern fronts. And further more, how many of those casualties were caused my the miserable russian winter vs actual combat.
- jnardiello 12y ago
  You see, even a sentence like "The Russians liked to send humans into the meat grinder" to me seems SO unfair and driven by a deeply conditioned mentality - please, don't take this personally and I don't really mean to offend -. While lack of organisation and proper equipment was a fact, they also were fighting a war in their own country. Which is quite a different story than just sending people abroad having an entire nation supporting you. This is something nor the US nor the UK has ever faced during their whole "modern" history. Those two soldiers sharing a rifle in the US would have been called heroes and would have had tens of movies covering their stories. But as they were Russians, they were just two poor unlucky men sent against their will to the meat grinder while probably they were soldiers well aware of giving their lives -trying to- protect their people. It's this basic lack of respect which is hurting me and that just confirms how history is the result of books written and approved by the current political power. To me, casualties say it all as they are the only real indicator of the suffering of a country (which goes well beyond propaganda). Also consider in such situations the line between official soldiers, unofficial militias and lone fighters is just a matter of definitions and asking "it was winter or a bullet?" is just the wrong question.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- njharman 12y ago
  > Russians liked to send humans into the meat grinder ill equipped That is simplistic (and largely wrong) view fueled by propaganda and post war "Winners (or current cold war combatants) rewrite history) OP is talking about. The German invasion of USSR caught them completely off guard, without the organization or material needed to fight. Reeling they did what they had to (sacrifice hundreds of thousands) to save Moscow, and buy time to move production east and organize a real defense. It was a heroic sacrifice and amazing military victory to survive the blitzkrieg. Later in the war USSR had the most of everything planes, tanks, artillery, and still men. Arguably the best tank of the war, one of if not the best ground attack plane. During the later winter offensives it was the Germans who sent their troops ill prepared for war. And all the Hitler no retreat orders led to many german meatgrinders.
  - ajuc 12y ago
    But it's confirmed that during many battles political officers shoot at soviet soldiers that tried to retreat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_troops#Barrier_troops_in_the_Red_Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_troops#Barrier_troops_i... Hard to expect small casualties when you shoot your soldiers with machineguns from the back.
    - njharman 12y ago
      First, they expected huge casualties. That is part of my point. Manpower was one of their only resources at start of war. The leaders and the people made the tough decision to sacrifice them to stay in the war. Unlike two previous victims of Blitzkrieg. Second, those weren't universal. Only used in specific circumstances (as your link states). And IIRC, largely done away with later in the war after USSR production caught up and they won strategic initiative.
      - ajuc 12y ago
        > Unlike two previous victims of Blitzkrieg. Please. Had USSR had the territorial situation of Poland (Germany to north and west, german allies participating in invasion south and east) it would fall just as well. No point in sacrificing hundreds of tousands of lives (which BTW Poles did in 1944 in Warsaw Uprising anyway - bad mistake of Polish government). BTW a lot of USSR early problems with German betrayal were self-inflicted (red terror disposed of big part of educated officers for example, also Stalin prepared invasion of his own - there was infrastructure prepared to attack, not to defend).
- jbattle 12y ago
  You could invert it and consider on which front the Germans suffered the most losses - clearly the Germans suffered the majority of their casualties fighting the Russians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II#OKW_War_Diary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_...
  - lostlogin 12y ago
    Reading German biographies you often stumble across accounts of people being threatened with a stint on The Eastern Front or discussing how to avoid going east. The Germans certainly disliked the Eastern Front most.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Arguing over who had the bigger role seems foolhardy to me. The masses of Soviet manpower were critical to defeating the Nazis, as were the masses of American war equipment (which the Soviets used extensively). Take away either one, and the war looks much different (and much, much worse).
ajuc 12y ago
Of course then you have to remember that USSR were allied with Nazis before and at the start of WW2, invaded Poland to start WW2 in 1939 together with them (ok, 16 days later, but the invasion was still taking place), and only started fighting Germany after Hitler betrayed and invaded them in 1941. So USSR made it possible to start WW2 in the first place, then when it backfired they managed to defend (with big industrial help from the west), and then hit back. Good for them, but expecting gratitude from people they invaded, mass murdered, "liberated" and then occupied till nineties is just bullshit. Also USSR casualties really shouldn't be labeled as "Russians". Russians were +- 50% of population of USSR and the fighting mostly took place on Polish, Ukrainian and Belarussian territory, so I'd say it was at most 50% Russians and 50% other nationalities.

viggity 12y ago

I won't take a definite stance, but would probably agree with you that the USSR had a bigger role defeating Germany than the US/UK. However, I would contend that "casualties says it all" is the wrong way to look at it. The Russians liked to send humans into the meat grinder ill equipped to deal with war (ex. having two soldiers share a rifle during the battle of Stalingrad). I haven't looked, but it would be more interesting to see total german casualties on the western and eastern fronts. And further more, how many of those casualties were caused my the miserable russian winter vs actual combat.

jnardiello 12y ago
You see, even a sentence like "The Russians liked to send humans into the meat grinder" to me seems SO unfair and driven by a deeply conditioned mentality - please, don't take this personally and I don't really mean to offend -. While lack of organisation and proper equipment was a fact, they also were fighting a war in their own country. Which is quite a different story than just sending people abroad having an entire nation supporting you. This is something nor the US nor the UK has ever faced during their whole "modern" history. Those two soldiers sharing a rifle in the US would have been called heroes and would have had tens of movies covering their stories. But as they were Russians, they were just two poor unlucky men sent against their will to the meat grinder while probably they were soldiers well aware of giving their lives -trying to- protect their people. It's this basic lack of respect which is hurting me and that just confirms how history is the result of books written and approved by the current political power. To me, casualties say it all as they are the only real indicator of the suffering of a country (which goes well beyond propaganda). Also consider in such situations the line between official soldiers, unofficial militias and lone fighters is just a matter of definitions and asking "it was winter or a bullet?" is just the wrong question.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
njharman 12y ago
> Russians liked to send humans into the meat grinder ill equipped That is simplistic (and largely wrong) view fueled by propaganda and post war "Winners (or current cold war combatants) rewrite history) OP is talking about. The German invasion of USSR caught them completely off guard, without the organization or material needed to fight. Reeling they did what they had to (sacrifice hundreds of thousands) to save Moscow, and buy time to move production east and organize a real defense. It was a heroic sacrifice and amazing military victory to survive the blitzkrieg. Later in the war USSR had the most of everything planes, tanks, artillery, and still men. Arguably the best tank of the war, one of if not the best ground attack plane. During the later winter offensives it was the Germans who sent their troops ill prepared for war. And all the Hitler no retreat orders led to many german meatgrinders.
- ajuc 12y ago
  But it's confirmed that during many battles political officers shoot at soviet soldiers that tried to retreat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_troops#Barrier_troops_in_the_Red_Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_troops#Barrier_troops_i... Hard to expect small casualties when you shoot your soldiers with machineguns from the back.
  - njharman 12y ago
    First, they expected huge casualties. That is part of my point. Manpower was one of their only resources at start of war. The leaders and the people made the tough decision to sacrifice them to stay in the war. Unlike two previous victims of Blitzkrieg. Second, those weren't universal. Only used in specific circumstances (as your link states). And IIRC, largely done away with later in the war after USSR production caught up and they won strategic initiative.
    - ajuc 12y ago
      > Unlike two previous victims of Blitzkrieg. Please. Had USSR had the territorial situation of Poland (Germany to north and west, german allies participating in invasion south and east) it would fall just as well. No point in sacrificing hundreds of tousands of lives (which BTW Poles did in 1944 in Warsaw Uprising anyway - bad mistake of Polish government). BTW a lot of USSR early problems with German betrayal were self-inflicted (red terror disposed of big part of educated officers for example, also Stalin prepared invasion of his own - there was infrastructure prepared to attack, not to defend).
jbattle 12y ago
You could invert it and consider on which front the Germans suffered the most losses - clearly the Germans suffered the majority of their casualties fighting the Russians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II#OKW_War_Diary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_...
- lostlogin 12y ago
  Reading German biographies you often stumble across accounts of people being threatened with a stint on The Eastern Front or discussing how to avoid going east. The Germans certainly disliked the Eastern Front most.
mikeash 12y ago
Arguing over who had the bigger role seems foolhardy to me. The masses of Soviet manpower were critical to defeating the Nazis, as were the masses of American war equipment (which the Soviets used extensively). Take away either one, and the war looks much different (and much, much worse).

ajuc 12y ago

Of course then you have to remember that USSR were allied with Nazis before and at the start of WW2, invaded Poland to start WW2 in 1939 together with them (ok, 16 days later, but the invasion was still taking place), and only started fighting Germany after Hitler betrayed and invaded them in 1941. So USSR made it possible to start WW2 in the first place, then when it backfired they managed to defend (with big industrial help from the west), and then hit back. Good for them, but expecting gratitude from people they invaded, mass murdered, "liberated" and then occupied till nineties is just bullshit. Also USSR casualties really shouldn't be labeled as "Russians". Russians were +- 50% of population of USSR and the fighting mostly took place on Polish, Ukrainian and Belarussian territory, so I'd say it was at most 50% Russians and 50% other nationalities.