Wich was the worst nation in the war?

[parsifal]

The reasons you give for fighting are real enough, but to be honest these are not THE reason people tend to fight. The reasons you are quoting are more to do with how people found themselves in the firing line.

THE reason why people fight is much more instinctive, and far less civilized. IT is the urge to survive, the realization that to survive one must kill the enemy, and the best way to do that is to work as a team with your compatriots. And the more effective and tenacious formations like the SS were that way mostly because the bonds if kinship that exist in the small units that form the whole are very strong. A squad or a platoon is a very tribal organization with really only one objective...to survive. But to survive, one must kill the enemy

[parsifal]

Hi Njaco

There may be any reason for this low figure...perhaps ellis is using the "official" OKH estimates for that table, perhaps it does not include the prisoners or severely wounded, perhaps it is just wehrmacht figures. I am reasonably certain of my figure of 5.8 million. which is based on the best source I know, the Ersatz Heer manpower returns and casualty lists

[Njaco]

No problem. I just wanted to show how figures aren't exactly concrete.

It just occurred to me that the winter clothing issue may be moot. What I mean is that certainly in the Winter 41/42 that it definately was a factor and if IIIRC as the Wehrmacht approached Moskow the first snows started to fall. So the failure to supply with proper clothing would be taken as a factor for that campaign.

But Stalingrad was 42/43. Wouldn't the logistics of that been solved by then?

[Soren]

The loss statistics I'm using are the most commonly accepted among experts, however the figure is still to low for the Soviets many argue, and is more in the area of 15.6 million soldiers dead or missing (Not counting wounded, captured or civilians). And recent discoveries of mass graves (Or dumping pits rather) seem to suggest that there's much merit to that opinion.

One thing is clear though, the Soviets lost no less than 12.68 million soldiers dead or missing as confirmed by Soviet loss records, despite the knowledge that much of it is missing. (Hence the often accepted 13.6 million) The total with civilians counted is 29 + million.

Now as for the Germans the figures a quite clear and they lost a total of 3.25 million soldiers dead or missing all fronts combined (Not counting wounded, captured or civilians).

[Soren]

Parsifal,

The figures I used are not from the OKH, and AFAIK the OKH actually never made any such estimates. Also the notion that people were afraid to tell the truth is ridiculous really, esp. seeing that the success of any operation relied very much on accurate information.

One thing that many researchers claim supports the figures I listed mention that looking at the manpower available to Germany vs the USSR only confirms the loss figures.

[parsifal]

Hi soren, what Soviet loss records are they. AFAIK the Soviets have never revealed the full extent of their casualties

Anyway, Your figures dont add up to those given in a lot of source material.

I agree that the casualty figures most commonly accepted in the post war period were those posted by OKH in its situation reports, but for the reasons I have given previously these figures are now generally accepted as suspect (I am referring to the 2.5 million figure you quoted earlier). The more generally accepted figures are those prepred by the Replacement Army, who kept the most detailed (and accurate) records of German mobilzation (and losses) of any german organization during the war.

I can assure you that OKH gave reports on almost a daily basis to hitler, Whether or not they were deliberately falsified is an open question, I admit (but one that has been suggested by other reputable authors, and one that just kinda appeals to me personally), however the facts are that those reports have in the post war analysis been shown as almost certainly in error. Unfortunately, those same numbers in the postwar histories have tended to be accepted more or less verbatim by a lot of researchers, so even if your source is not the OKH records directly, there is a good chance that they are based on them. If you could name and produce your source, we may be able to cross check them for that or any other errors

I have a summary of these reports which are in English (my german is not so good). I have copied a summary page for you to see. It is hard to see, admittedly, but if you read it carefully, you will see the total casualties, from all sources was 6.1 million by wars end. This, incidentally are considered conservative numbers. As I said, there are some sources that take the figures even higher, but I dont buy those figures.

I cant be nearly so sure of Soviet casualties, but my figures are around the 12.2 million, so we are pretty much in agreement, except when you make claims of 15 million plus. There is no real evidence that I know of to support that, although there are some exaggerated claims made by some that have never been substantiated that i am aware of.

As Njaco points out, establishing a precise figure for casualties is a very difficult task, , and even harder for the Soviets, but in reality the figures you are quoting are not too bad, but still just a little low to be honest. Once we can arrive at some sort of agreed set of numbers, we can move forward with a more detailed analysis

[parsifal]

Sorry repeated myself, see the next post

[parsifal]

I should have added that the measure of an armies capability is not generally the casualty rates that it sustains, but rather the force structure that needs to achieve a point of equilibrium with an opponent. A very crude, but simple way of doing this is to compare the manpower needed to achieve a point of equilibrium. On the east front the Soviets showed that with a force structure of about 1.87 times that of the germans, they could achieve overwhelming victory. Using some guesswork, that would suggest that the point of balnce is somewhere in the area of 1.4:1, but probably less for the Infantry, for reasons previously given (concerning the superiority of the Panzerwaffe, and quite possiblly the LW as well).

[renrich]

I believe that any statistics on WW2 with their origin from the USSR are extremely suspect. The reasons are many fold. First, the Soviet military and political were impossible to separate. At one point in the war it may have been desirable to exaggerate casualties while later the opposite may have been true. Then the authorities might reverse themselves. Today, I suspect that the tendency is to exaggerate casualties and downplay the help from allies. Also, because of disorganisation, especially in the early going, much casualty information was probably inaccurate. I would suspect that German final returns insofar as it was possible are accurate. Studies of combat show that the most important motivating factor in good troop performance is small unit "togetherness" and the concept of "honor." An interesting treatise on the subject is "The Face of Battle," by John Keegan.

[stasoid]

There always been a confusion about Red Army vs Vermaht kill ratio. High soviet losses of 10 million total dead (wiki) are combined of two figures: KIA/MIA 6.6 mln + POWs died in captivity 3.6 mln.

The difference is that most of 5.5 mln german POWs made it home at the end but soviet ones didnt. So when you look at the total death of the Red Army you see a huge number of 10 million total loss, but when you count only those killed or missing on the battlefields you got a kill ratio of 1 to 1.5

[parsifal]

High Stasoid

I acknowledge your point about the numbers of Soviets killed whilst in captivity, but i am intersted in your 10 million figure for KIAs. Do you have a source other than wiki to back that up. Does Wiki provide any clue on its sources?

[Haztoys]

Great thread guys ....On the numbers ...How and why would you stand fast on the casualty rate of the war ...Russia and Germany did not tell all..As I'm sure other countrys padded numbers too...To say the Germans were better do to higher kill rate is very one sided... The Germans way of fighting was high tec and and not the same as the Russians ...The Russians was in mass low tec and keep falling back with land and man power to spare... The Japans way was there own ..The UK had there own ..The USA...and so on .... At times it did work for each country... And at times it did not... All in the same war...

You can't say the German numbers are right ...Do to not wanting to upset Hitler..And with all that was going on at the time with the Germans..I'm sure numbers were low on the list of things...... And nether was the Russians as Stalin did not want the world to know the numbers...And theres books that have the numbers all over the place...

Kill numbers on the eastern front will never be known...I'm sure the German kill numbers are higher ... The way the Russians do war made that happen.. And the German GI was the best in the world at that time...In the end who was the winner..

[stasoid]

parsifal, wiki always provides a source of information it publishes.

In this case, for German losses it refers to:

1 Rűdiger Overmans, Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Oldenbourg 2000. ISBN 3-486-56531-1, Richard Overy The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia (2004), ISBN 0-7139-9309-X

For soviet losses to: Vadim Erlikman, Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke: spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5-93165-107-1; Mark Axworthy, Third Axis Fourth Ally. Arms and Armour 1995, p. 216. ISBN 1-85409-267-7

If you scroll down the page I posted earlier. Those numbers may vary 10-15% but look more realistic.

I also adds that: Total Soviet losses includes Deaths Partisans-250,000 and Deaths Militia-150,000 KIA/MIA above = Killed in action / Missing in action

[parsifal]

Thankyou, they sound quite good. Lets wait for Sorens reply

[Soren]

Parsifal,

Your guess on Soviet military losses (KIA + MIA, no wounded, POW's or civilians counted) many experts will have no problem with as the figures which pop up mostly are 12.68 million to 13.6 million, so you're close. However the continious discovery of mass grave pits containing unaccounted for Soviet soldiers seems to suggest that the true figure is even higher, up to 15.6 million some experts assume (Although the latter hasn't been forwarded as definite, just an assumption). A definite number which as been given though is by Harper Collins who lists total Soviet soldiers KIA & MIA is atleast 14.5 million.

The opinion is that the Soviets have actually downplayed their losses in order to make themselves look as more durable in war, esp. later in the war. This was in part because the Soviets didn't want the US & UN to think of them as easy push overs during the cold war, and to strenghten the idea that trying to invade the USSR would fail for anyone.


My sources for the statistics are listed below, but much of what I know comes from debating this issue many times with many VERY knowledgable people at other forums.

One thing which is indeed for sure is that the Soviet losses in terms of KIA & MIA fighting against the Germans from 41 to 45 was no less than 12.68 million.

As for German losses (KIA & MIA only) it varies extremely little between the trustworthy sources out there from between 3.25 to 3.5 million. Civilian losses range from 2.5 to 3.1 million. The reason for the large variation in civilian casualties is the fact there wasn't held near as closely track of them.

Sources:
J. Lee Ready
Harper Collins
Kinder
Encarta
Wallechinsky