WW2 casualties in today's perspective

you don't know wrote:

All I said was that you shared your opinion - and you know it is true. You don't know me, so when you say I'm not familiar with the resources you talk BS. The way you replied proves something about you is not quite right.

Just like the Axis had NO chance of total victory, you brought absolutely nothing to the discussion. Perfect.

Those getting killed from the drones have not moved on, and neither have the shareholders and corporate directors of the companies that profit from the technology. At different ends of the transaction, all the above individuals are intimately connected with conflict.

Esterhazy, what is your first name? First initial if you don't want to give the whole name.

FFF wrote:

Esterhazy wrote:

Those getting killed from the drones have not moved on, and neither have the shareholders and corporate directors of the companies that profit from the technology. At different ends of the transaction, all the above individuals are intimately connected with conflict.

Esterhazy, what is your first name? First initial if you don't want to give the whole name.

How about you tell us your name first, since you care so much about it? I am Ference Esterhazy, so go and report me to your goons if you like. The police state is already in place.

almost 1/2 were ... wrote:

doctorj wrote:

WWI Alone killed something in the high 10 million people (I don't know the exact number)

WWII was much higher, over 60 million I think.

Whatever the amount is too much. It's not that the Axis and allies were ok with it. It was and it is the nature of war: Good and bad people end up dead. Victory was measured by the amount of pain you were able to inflict (both infrastructure and human life) Tragic, people's lives treated no better than pawns on a giant chess table.

So much for being an "intelligent, civilized" species huh?

If your 60 million figure is correct, Soviets lost almost half of all WW2 deaths. Soviet military personnel killed, app. 8.5 million. Soviet citizens killed, app. 19 million, total, app. 27.5 million

How did Stalin keep Soviets from turning against him?

He was a ruthless dictator so it didn't matter what the people thought of him.

Germany came within a whisker of capturing Moscow. I agree with Banana Bread. If the Germans had launched Operation Barbarossa even one month earlier they could have toppled the USSR.

Yea, yea ... Russians suffered the most in WW-II. Same old s**t. The KGB, etc have played the victim card for 75 years.

Throw out your thieving corrupt oligarchs and take all that good math skills and do something good for mankind and your own people. Stop looking back... look forward to the future.

ra1n man wrote:

Why were both the axis and allies OK with suffering losses in the tens of millions?

Could you even imagine if today 500,000 American soldiers died over a couple years? What about 5-10 million? What about if Japan started killing 10,000 Chinese evey day?

After a few thousand losses, we'd be like "Dude , wtf? We surrender...this is insane." And with good reason...

Glad you feel this way, because when about half the states decide to pull out of the Union, we don't want to cause you any bloodshed.

ra1n man wrote:

Why were both the axis and allies OK with suffering losses in the tens of millions?

Could you even imagine if today 500,000 American soldiers died over a couple years? What about 5-10 million? What about if Japan started killing 10,000 Chinese evey day?

After a few thousand losses, we'd be like "Dude , wtf? We surrender...this is insane." And with good reason...

History shows that the purpose of war has always been conquest and plunder.

It is always declared by a ruling class and fought by a serving class.

The answer to your first question is......drumroll...ready...wait for it..... Money!

colorunner123 wrote:

YMMV wrote:

The Germans had NO chance of conquering the USSR, just as Japan had NO chance of defeating the U.S.. Tweaking their attack plan or execution is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic...the Nazis lost the war the moment they crossed the Bug River in 1941.

Germany came within a whisker of capturing Moscow. I agree with Banana Bread. If the Germans had launched Operation Barbarossa even one month earlier they could have toppled the USSR.

They couldn't because of the Spring thaw mud.

Taking Moscow was irrelevant anyway as I explained above. Even Hitler himself knew that. The ONLY thing that mattered in 1941 was their getting to Baku, which they were utterly unable to do.

ra1n man wrote:

Why were both the axis and allies OK with suffering losses in the tens of millions?

Could you even imagine if today 500,000 American soldiers died over a couple years? What about 5-10 million? What about if Japan started killing 10,000 Chinese evey day?

After a few thousand losses, we'd be like "Dude , wtf? We surrender...this is insane." And with good reason...

If the war was to stop the Holocaust or after being directly attacked by an enemy on our home soil then we wouldn't just give up after a few thousand losses.

Your perspective is this silly war on terror which has no real impact on our daily lives so yes losing a few thousand lives in a desert in the Middle East isn't worth it.

If North Korea for instance teamed up with China and Russia to bomb Hawaii, Alaska, California, Washington, or Oregon then you can bet your life we would not give up after 500k losses. We'd fight until tens of millions of lives are lost again.

And the other side would keep fighting as well. China has 5x as many people as the US. So, China could sustain losses over 100m and be fine.

Similarly if we found out some other country was committing a Holocaust type purge then we would again fight until we stop it. Regardless of the losses to our side. And the other side would also not just give up.

These are the reasons why economic sanctions are the go to solution nowadays. A real war would see over 100m lives lost without blinking. Nobody wants that.

We didn't know the scope of the Holocaust until WWII was in it's mop phase.

As we speak, China is sending Muslims to concentration camps.

To all you armchair historians, if you want to know the true facts, origins, and outcomes of WW1 and WW2, read The First World War and The Second World War both by Martin Gilbert, the most recognized historical authority on the subject.

YMMV wrote:

colorunner123 wrote:

Germany came within a whisker of capturing Moscow. I agree with Banana Bread. If the Germans had launched Operation Barbarossa even one month earlier they could have toppled the USSR.

They couldn't because of the Spring thaw mud.

Taking Moscow was irrelevant anyway as I explained above. Even Hitler himself knew that. The ONLY thing that mattered in 1941 was their getting to Baku, which they were utterly unable to do.

YMMV sticks with Hitler, the military uneducated corporal from Austria on this point. Congratulations!

All relevant scholars agree if there was any chance of beating Russia, taking Moscow was the key. Hitler's fixation of the oil fields in the South proved to be disastrous.

Striking similarities between YMMV's knowledge of nutrition, economics, and military history have been duly noted, Mr Professor Google.

Hitler is to blame for starting WW2.

The Allies are to blame for agreeing to an armistice with Germany in WW1 instead of forcing unconditional surrender.

Hindsight is 20/20, but had the later happened, WW2 never would have.

YMMV wrote:

almost 1/2 were ... wrote:

How did Stalin keep Soviets from turning against him?

Stalin had already purged anyone in his circle who might turn on him. Plus the Russians overall had the choice of misery under Stalin or death under Hitler. Hard to go looking to complain to Uncle Joe when your house is burning and the Nazis are raping and murdering your family. Time to jump into a T-34 and get your land back.

The European powers had built global empires over the previous centuries when Germany and Japan were a collection of feudal states. By the time they arrived at the bargaining table there was no room left. So they went to work building lethal war machines to force the issue. Technology and propaganda mind control coupled together turned a cold shower (for the allied powers) into a infernal bloodbath.

The Germans treated their opponents with dignity. The Japanese...and Soviet ‘Allies’ were the rapers and pillagers.

That is absolutely incorrect. The Allies had a great intelligence, way superior than the Nazis, especially at least from 1942 (check the battle of Atlantic and the U-boat's issues), and knowledge about Holocaust. Also, Eisenhower was always more of a politician than general. Why did they do nothing to stop it? Well, that is another story.

Are you kidding me? Doesn't anyone here actually study German WW2 history or what? The "Waffen-SS," the Nazi's best fighting force, was notorious for war crimes.

The 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler, commanded by the ruthless Sepp Dietrich, was involved in numerous war crimes including the horrific Malmedy massacre where a series of killings were committed against American prisoners of war and Belgian civilians during the Battle of the Bulge.

I had a great uncle who was a medic and was treating injured GIs at the Battle of the Bulge when a Waffen-SS sniper took him out with a head shot - tore up his family forever.

The Waffen-SS was not going to take prisoners and civilians who got in the way would be killed without a second thought. These weren't nice guys and were most loyal to Hiltler often clashing with the Wermacht. In fact, Field Marshal Rommel despised these units.