To be sure, we came on the scene late Will. But keep in mind what lead to the horrible death toll for the Russians. Extremely appalling conditions, no food, very cold, no weapons, no ammunition, no defensive network, no leadership (1936 purges), no plans, no nothing. The men in the earlier part of the war went into battle with no weapons. The Russian armies in the beginning were encircled, the men captured and later starved or killed by the elements in prison camps. Stalin had those men driven forward into battle to make the Germans expend their ammunition faster than it could be resupplied. He needed time to move his industry behind the Ural Mountains and gear up for war.
When America entered the war, we lost a lot of men quickly (Bataan, etc.). Britain too at that point (Singapore, Burma, etc.) They were poorly armed and equipped. Very quickly the war machine geared up and that began to change. They were much better armed later in the war. I guess I am saying that that death counts may not be a true reflection of 'involvement' as I understand it here. By that reasoning, each side would have lost equal numbers of people if both started fighting at the same time (i.e. Germany and Russia). Only, Germany kicked Russia's ass before the T-34s came along and helped turn the tide. On some Pacific Islands the ratio of Japanese dead vs. American was very lopsided. 25,000 dead vs. 3,000 dead AND wounded. The cost of war on the human psyche I can only imagine, having seen a little of it, albeit briefly, in Mali. Mainly the vestiges of it. It horribly disrupts families and the infrastructure of life. -Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: Benjamin Falloon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 11:38 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Ouch > > > Will, > > Interesting, if you take the earlier reference to people involved > in the war > versus those killed you can get an idea of the total > cost/involvment in the > war for those countries. here are some rough estimates... I've > only included > USSR, US and Germany because I could only find reference to the > total people > involved (not be be confused with killed) for these countries... > > USSR 30 million involved: > 66 % were killed approx. > > Germany 17 million involved : > 32% were killed approx. > > US 16 million involved : > 1.6% approx. > > These figures give an good assessment of involvment in WW2. > Russia was definately the hardest hit by a long way. US almost doesn't > register if you look at the complete lists. It's like saying of every 100 > American's directly involved in the war only 1 or 2 out of these were > killed. Contrast that will the USSR and it's 60 out of every 100 people. > Russia also involved twice as many people as the US based on these figures > so you could reduce the US involvement even further. In other > words, if the > US had involved as many people as Russia (30 million) then less > than 0.5% of > those involved would have died (or 1 in 200 people). > > This really strikes me because just imagine what a PROFOUND > cultural impact > that must have had on Russians (and the rest of Europe). When this post of > WW2 casualties started I was afraid it must be insensitive to discuss > countries death tolls so dispassionately. Having spent a little time on it > however, it becomes critically clear what a massive impact that must have > had. And what little involvement the US really had by comparison. We must > consider these immense figures if we are to personally discuss > the events of > the twentieth century with any seriousness. They were massive > loses and for > those countries involved would have had earth shattering consequences. > > Benjamin > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Will Swain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 3:04 AM > Subject: RE: Ouch > > > > surely death tolls would be a more accurate way of assessing a countries > > involvement? > > > > will > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 14 December 2001 15:50 > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Ouch > > > > > > MS Encarta, what would your figures be? > > > > At 02:45 AM 12/15/2001 +1100, you wrote: > > >where the hell did you get those figures.. you are way off > > > > > >"... in reality".... give me a break > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: "Nick McClure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 1:32 AM > > >Subject: RE: Ouch > > > > > > > > > > Well, in reality, It was USSR with around 20 Million troops, then > > Germany > > > > with 17 Million, then the US with 16 Million, British > Empire was next > > with > > > > a little over 8 million, then Japan, and China with 6-7 > Million each. > > > > > > > > I am not only talking about the European side only. I am > also talking > > >about > > > > the Pacific side as well. > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
