This is pretty sobering. Especially the number in the Eastern European theatre. I knew that the fatalities in the east were much greater in number than the west, but not to this extent.
http://io9.com/this-animated-data-visualization-of-world-war-ii-fatali-1709065880
I think I am going to have to read up more on this. Any good suggestions?
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 05, 2015, 03:16:08 PM
This is pretty sobering. Especially the number in the Eastern European theatre. I knew that the fatalities in the east were much greater in number than the west, but not to this extent.
http://io9.com/this-animated-data-visualization-of-world-war-ii-fatali-1709065880
I think I am going to have to read up more on this. Any good suggestions?
The war on the Eastern Front eclipsed all others in terms of magnitude, ferocity, intensity, and cost. I have read many books on the subject and it is like saying baseball - there are many dimensions and nuances to what is really one of the most colossal episodes in human history.
Some of the better reads include:
Russia's War, by Richard Overy. I am a huge fan of this author. His works are meticulous and impeccable.
The 900 Days by Harrison Salisbury. Chronicles the Siege of Leningrad. An absolutely horrific battle that most Americans have never heard of. Salisbury, one of my favorite writers as well, was a journalist for the NYT and his writing makes for easy reading. (I highly recommend his work on China's new mandarins,
The New Emperors.Why the Alies Won, by Richard Overy. A must read on the economics of the war.
The Battle of Kursk, by Glantz and House. This might appeal more to the military officer but it offers compelling insight due to the authors' unprecedented access to Red Army archival material. This was on the Reading List for Air War College and was used to break down the engagement with incredible precision. Kursk towers over any Western Front engagement in scope, scale, and strategic impact. This battle broke the Wermacht's spinal column.
Stalingrad, by Antony Beevor. The definitive narrative account of an engagement that is almost impossible to describe.
Forgotten Soldier, by Guy Sajer. Most works are written from the strategic perspective; Sajer, a Wehrmacht grunt, offers first-hand insight into the daily existence of the German infantryman. We have demonized the German soldier. Sajer's work reminds us that the vast majority of participants were teen aged boys just months removed from school.
Armageddon, by Max Hastings. Hastings is an eminent historian and this work captures the essence of the Battle for Germany on both fronts and from both sides, including civilians.
We had the most powerful army and weapons on the planet at the end of WWII. Imagine if we decided to take Stalin out of power.
Quote from: keefe on June 05, 2015, 04:06:06 PM
The war on the Eastern Front eclipsed all others in terms of magnitude, ferocity, intensity, and cost. I have read many books on the subject and it is like saying baseball - there are many dimensions and nuances to what is really one of the most colossal episodes in human history.
Some of the better reads include:
Russia's War, by Richard Overy. I am a huge fan of this author. His works are meticulous and impeccable.
The 900 Days by Harrison Salisbury. Chronicles the Siege of Leningrad. An absolutely horrific battle that most Americans have never heard of. Salisbury, one of my favorite writers as well, was a journalist for the NYT and his writing makes for easy reading. (I highly recommend his work on China's new mandarins, The New Emperors.
Why the Alies Won, by Richard Overy. A must read on the economics of the war.
The Battle of Kursk, by Glantz and House. This might appeal more to the military officer but it offers compelling insight due to the authors' unprecedented access to Red Army archival material. This was on the Reading List for Air War College and was used to break down the engagement with incredible precision. Kursk towers over any Western Front engagement in scope, scale, and strategic impact. This battle broke the Wermacht's spinal column.
Stalingrad, by Antony Beevor. The definitive narrative account of an engagement that is almost impossible to describe.
Forgotten Soldier, by Guy Sajer. Most works are written from the strategic perspective; Sajer, a Wehrmacht grunt, offers first-hand insight into the daily existence of the German infantryman. We have demonized the German soldier. Sajer's work reminds us that the vast majority of participants were teen aged boys just months removed from school.
Armageddon, by Max Hastings. Hastings is an eminent historian and this work captures the essence of the Battle for Germany on both fronts and from both sides, including civilians.
Thanks keefe....very much appreciated.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 05, 2015, 03:16:08 PM
This is pretty sobering. Especially the number in the Eastern European theatre. I knew that the fatalities in the east were much greater in number than the west, but not to this extent.
http://io9.com/this-animated-data-visualization-of-world-war-ii-fatali-1709065880
I think I am going to have to read up more on this. Any good suggestions?
I watched this last weekend. The last part about the "long peace" and vast downward trend in battle deaths over the past 70 years is also interesting.
I enjoyed Enemy at the Gates with Ed Harris and Jude Law. It's very Saving Private Ryan-ish.
The Marshall Plan may have been the single most significant event in the 20th Century to bring democracy to the world. Truman and Marshall never got their due.
Quote from: real chili 83 on June 05, 2015, 07:37:59 PM
We had the most powerful army and weapons on the planet at the end of WWII. Imagine if we decided to take Stalin out of power.
America was the preeminent naval and air power but the Red Army
lost more men in WWII than we had in uniform. Patton wanted to keep going east, even rearming the Wehrmacht as allies, but fortunately saner heads prevailed.
While we had a nuclear monopoly we had limited ability to produce a meaningful arsenal and, because of the vast areas under Soviet control, most Russian critical nodes were beyond the reach of our delivery platforms in 1945. Britain was broke so this would have been our war.
If the US Army had tried to take on the Red Army it would have gotten its a$$ kicked. The Soviets had a huge numerical advantage in troops, and despite what most Americans think, their ground force OOB was superior in many critical quantitative and qualitative measures.
The US and USSR produced comparable numbers of armored vehicles but the T-34 was a far superior warfighting tank to the American M4 Sherman and would have outclassed the M4 in the fighting across the steppes of Russia (which was markedly different operating environment than Western Europe with less open terrain and characterized by numerous deep waterways which inhibits maneuver warfare.)
The Red Army really differentiated in its reliance on artillery. The Soviets had 7 times the number of field artillery and mortars than an American division. STAVKA relied on massive artillery barrages orchestrated through incredibly well crafted fire direction schemes as a suppressive instrument. The Red Army didn't have the C-Cubed infrastructure and mobility of the US Army which relied more on precision in its indirect fire schemes.
(One important distinction in favor of the western allies was the invention of the VT or proximity fuse. One of the most crucial inventions of the war, the VT fuse raised the statistical probability of artillery achieving its desired effects, thereby reducing exponentially the number of rounds needed to be fired. In a great example of America retooling to a wartime economy, a GE plant that made Christmas lights was used to make the VT fuse glass cylinders.)