Russians simply won by the power of numbers

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
Post Reply
User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 17:59
Location: Europe

#136

Post by Qvist » 14 Apr 2005, 09:13

Hi Kunikov
The Red Army was by 1944 the better of the two, that's a fact.
Well - during this year, the overall numerical edge of the Red Army Fronts was between 2.6 to 1 (1st quarter) and 3.6 to 1 (4th quarter) when measured against the German forces, and they still incurred almost three times more combat losses than the Germans did - so whatever that estimation is, it is not a "fact".

Also, I don't really see what Evzonas has written to deserve such a vitriolic treatment.

cheers

Karri
Member
Posts: 513
Joined: 07 Nov 2003, 21:41
Location: Dublin

#137

Post by Karri » 14 Apr 2005, 09:49

Igorn wrote: Didn't Finnish Army committed war crimes?

I want to remind to my Finnish friends, that according to an excellent book of Helge Seppjala "Finland as an Invader (or Occupier) in 1941-1945": " ... As a result of hard slavery labour, malnutrition, starvation, executions over 14,000 Soviet people or 1/5 th of all Soviet people remained on the territories occupied by Finns died. ... For the same reasons, in the Finnish concentration camps the highest death rate was amongst the Soviet POW in 1942. In total Finns captured 64,188 Soviet POW but after war returned back only 42,412. According to military statistics 18,318 Soviet people died in the Finnish concentration camps . In that difficult and starvation year some more 15,000 Soviet people died for different reasons. About 30 per cent out of 100 per cent of Soviet POW captured by Finns died. Only Germany and Japan reached this level. ... After deterioration of strategic position of Germany in July 1943 in Kursk Battle, the commandant of the Military Department of the Eastern Karelia decided to re-name deserving notorius reputation concentration camps into camps for moved people... Marshal Mannerheim approvedthis proposition and since November 12th, 1943 concentration camps were renamed. That's how Petrozavodsk, Svyatoozersk and Alavoinensky camps for moved people appeared. Notorious Kol-vasoozersky and Kidasovsky disciplinary camps remained as concentration camps. Re-branding of camps didn't cause any improvements for prisoners. It was done just for deception purposes but for improvement of prisoners' lives...The punishment of prisoners became stiffer next spring..." Helge Seppjala "Finland as an Invader in 1941-1945
Finnish wrier Eino Pietola published in 187 his book " POW in Finnland, 1941-1944, where he gives many examples of POW treatment. In his research, Pietola says about 18,700 Soviet POW died in Finnish concentration camps. According to Seppjala this figure probably is more precise than earlier published because it was based on the interrogation/investigation documents.

Best Regards from Russia,
In 1942 Finland was short in food supplies, and thus the prisnoers naturally received even less supplies, which caused many deaths. On the other hand disease tend to spread in camps, and with malnutrition, I'd say this caused most of the deaths. I haven't heard of POWs or civilians being killed on purpose en masse. Furthermore, if 1000 of 2400 finnish pows were killed then Soviet Union is in the '30% club" as well...


User avatar
Evzonas
Member
Posts: 664
Joined: 01 Jul 2004, 11:25
Location: Athens, Greece

#138

Post by Evzonas » 14 Apr 2005, 11:34

Here is a comparative death toll listing for Germany and USSR during WWII according to a multitude of sources:

GERMANY
* Military:
o HarperCollins: 2,850,000
o Ellis: 3,250,000
o Compton's: 3,250,000
o Info. Please: 3,250,000 (all causes)
o Britannica: 3,500,000 (incl. 1M missing. Not incl.: 250,000 dead of natural causes, suicide and execution)
o Small & Singer: 3,500,000
o Encarta: 3,500,000
o Keegan: 4,000,000
o Kinder: 4,000,000
o Urlanis: 4,500,000
o Eckhardt: 4,750,000
o MEDIAN: 3.5M
* Civilian:
o Compton's: 500,000
o Britannica: 780,000
o Wallechinsky: 780,000
o Davies: 780,000
o Eckhardt: 1,471,000
o Keegan: 1,593,000
o Urlanis: 2,000,000
o HarperCollins: 2,300,000
o Ellis: 2,050,000 (by Allies), 300,000 (by Germans)
o Kinder: 3,800,000
o Encarta: 3,800,000
o MEDIAN: 1.6M
* All (undifferentiated):
o Compton's: 3.75M
o Wallechinsky: 4M
o Britannica: 4.28M
o Messenger: 5M
o HarperCollins: 5.15M
o Ellis: 5.55M
o Keegan: 5.593M
o Eckhardt: 6.221M
o Urlanis: 6.5M
o Encarta: 7.3M
o Kinder: 7.8M
o MEDIAN: 5.5M

USSR
* Military:
o Info. Please: 6,115,000 (all causes)
o Compton's: 6,750,000
o Keegan: 7,000,000
o Small & Singer: 7,500,000
o Eckhardt: 7,500,000
o Davies: 8,000,000 to 9,000,000
o Barbarossa, the Axis and the Allies, by John Erickson and David Dilks
+ KIA, Died of wounds, Accidents, Suicides: 6,885,1000 [sic]
+ Dead and Missing: 8,668,400
+ Mentions and dismisses other estimates of 23M and 26.4M.
o Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997); also :
+ KIA, DoW, etc.: 6,885,100
+ Total Dead: 8,668,400
o Mazower: 3M POWs through starvation + 6.5M in battle = 9.5M
o Urlanis: 10,000,000
o Volkogonov: 10,000,000
o Ellis: 11,000,000
o Britannica: 11,000,000
o Encarta: 13,000,000
o Kinder: 13,600,000
o Wallechinsky: 13,600,000
o HarperCollins: 14,500,000
o 30 Apr. 1994 Guardian: 22M
o Steven Shabad
+ Sokolov's new calculations: 26.4M
+ Gorbachev's official est.: 8,668,000 Red Army dead
o MEDIAN: 10M
* Civilian:
o Compton's: 6M
o Ellis: 6,700,000
o Britannica: 7,000,000
o HarperCollins: 7,000,000
o Encarta: 7,000,000
o Kinder: 7,000,000
o Keegan: 7,000,000
o Eckhardt: 7,500,000
o Mazower: 10M
o Urlanis: 10,000,000
o Steven Shabad (citing Sokolov): 16.9M
o Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): "best estimate" 17M, citing
+ Sokolov: 16,900,000
+ Korol: 24,000,000
o Davies: 16,000,000 to 19,000,000
o 30 Apr. 1994 Guardian: 18M
o MEDIAN: 7M
* Total:
o Compton's: 12.75M
o Keegan: 14M
o Eckhardt: 15M
o Ellis: 17.7M
o Britannica: 18M
o Mazower: 19.5M
o Encarta: 20M
o Messenger: 20M
o Urlanis: 20M
o Kinder: 20.6M
o HarperCollins: 21.5M
o Wallechinsky: 20-26M
o Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): 25M
o Davies: 24M to 28M
o Volkogonov, Dmitri, Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy (1991): 26-27M
o Guiness World Records: 26.6M [http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/index.asp?id=46251]
o Hochschild: 27M
o 30 Apr. 1994 Guardian: 40M
o Steven Shabad
+ Sokolov's new calculations: 43.3M
+ Stalin's official public est.: 7M dead
+ Khrushchev's official est.: 20M
+ Gorbachev's official est.: 27M
o Barbarossa, the Axis and the Allies, by John Erickson and David Dilks: 49M (acc2 book review: Agence France Presse, 16 June 1994)
o MEDIAN: 20M


Take out the smallest and the biggest numbers for each category and calculate the average:

GERMANY
* Military:
3.625.000
* Civilian:
1.311.555
* All (undifferentiated):
5.500.000

USSR
* Military:
~11.000.000
* Civilian:
~10.000.000
* Total:
~23.400.000

This gives as result USSR/German losses :

Military 3to1
Civilian ~8to1
Total ~4to1

Provided Germany was ruthlesly carpet bombed by the Allies especial in industrial complexes and cities, the death toll for Russia is enormous...

Some interesting statistics that actually proove the power of numbers that won the war for Russia can be seen here:
http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/stats.html

Also, regarding military losses in Eastern front especially:

(Includes missing, but not POWs. According to John Ellis, World War II : a statistical survey (Facts on File, 1993) unless otherwise noted.)

* Poland, 1939
o Poles: 66,300
o Germans: 13,110
o [Soviets]: 900 ("Russians")
o [TOTAL: ca. 80,000]
* Denmark/Norway, 1940
o Germans: 3,692
o Norwegians: 2,000
o Danes: -
o [TOTAL: ca. 5,700]
* France 1940
o French: 120,000
o Germans: 43,110
o British: 11,010
o Belgians: 7,500
o Dutch: 2,890
o Italians: 1,250
o [TOTAL: ca. 185,000]
* Balkans, 1941
o Yugoslavs: ?
o Italians: 38,830
o Greeks: 19,000
o Germans: 3,674 (K+W) [A total of 34,040 Germans were killed in the Balkans to 31 Dec. 1944]
o [TOTAL: ca. 160,000]
* Greece, 1940-41 (according to Gilbert, A History of the 20th Century)
o Italians: 13,755
o Greeks: 15,700
o Germans: 2,232
o British: 3,712
o [TOTAL: ca. 35,400]
* Eastern Front, 1941-45
o Ellis
+ [Soviets]: 11,000,000 ("Russians")
+ Germans: 2,415,690 (K+M+POWs, incl. SS troops, to Dec. 1944. Another est. is 1,001,680K + 1,287,140M = 2,288,820 in Field Army only, 22-June 1941-10 March 1945.)
+ Romanians: 381,000 (as Axis). 170,000 (as Allies)
+ Hungarians: 136,000
+ Poles: >40,000
+ Bulgarians: 32,000
+ [TOTAL: ca. 14,000,000]
o Clodfelter
+ [Soviets]: 7.5M to 12.0M ("Russians")
+ Germans: 1,001,000 kia
+ Romanians: 300,000 d.
+ Hungarians: 200,000 d.
+ [TOTAL: ca. 11,251,000 ± 2,250,000]

If this is no proof of the fact that Russia won not by superior tactics, not by superior armour or weaponry but by a huge death toll then what is?

It is very impressive and speaks for itself that Romanians, who fought first as Axis and later with Allies, lost 381.000 with the Axis side and 170.000 with the Allies.... This means alot!!!

I am looking for information regarding the same data but sparsed over the years of war and also, of the forces occupied in Eastern front during the war... Since our friend Kunikov is not willing to share his sources with the rest of us, someone has to do it... I am looking forward for anybody who can add information from ANY liable source so I can build a propper chart and publish it on a web-page so it will not occupy forum space and bandwidth...

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

#139

Post by Jon G. » 14 Apr 2005, 11:55

Hi Evzonas, as a minor addendum to the numbers you list, Martin Kitchen in Nazi Germany at War states total German losses in WWII as 4,25 million killed and a further 1 million missing. However, he does not differentiate between civilian and military losses.

Igorn
Member
Posts: 566
Joined: 10 Dec 2004, 12:13
Location: Moscow, Russia
Contact:

#140

Post by Igorn » 14 Apr 2005, 11:58

Qvist wrote:Hi Kunikov
The Red Army was by 1944 the better of the two, that's a fact.
Well - during this year, the overall numerical edge of the Red Army Fronts was between 2.6 to 1 (1st quarter) and 3.6 to 1 (4th quarter) when measured against the German forces, and they still incurred almost three times more combat losses than the Germans did - so whatever that estimation is, it is not a "fact".

Qvist,

I know that you are the long-time defender and fan of bitten and defeated Nazis and I don’t expect to hear from you any tribute to the Russian Army. But those who want to see an unbiased assessment of the Russian Army vs. Wehrmacht I refer you to an excellent book of David Glantz and Jonathan House, When Titans Clashed:

"...Continuous casualties meant a decline in training and, therefore, in tactical proficiency. Equipment wore out, and the German economy was no longer able to provide quality weapons in sufficient quantities to maintain the previous technological edge. As for leadership, Adolph Hitler began to resemble the Stalin of 1941. Having been correct to forbid withdrawals during the first Soviet winter offensive, Hitler interfered more and more in operations, both offensive and defensive. Although this interference has been exaggerated as a kind of universal German alibi for any defeat, it is true that the German forces gradually lost the flexibility and subordinate initiative that had made them so successful. A few brilliant commanders were permitted to make their own decisions as late as 1945, but, if they failed, they were soon replaced by men too timid to even request the authority to maneuver. Fuehrungsoffiziers, the Nazi equivalent of political commissars, began to appear in German headquarters, and commanders who suffered defeat for any reason were lucky to escape with their lives. Under these circumstances, the German solder's principal motivation became simply survival. At the tactical level, only the most fanatical Nazis had any faith in ultimate victory, but every German feared to surrender to seemingly inhuman enemy.

The Red Army painfully developed effective leaders, organizations, weapons, and tactics, in the process returning to its prewar concepts of warfare. During the second of war, from late 1942 through 1943, the army blossomed into a force that not only could halt the fabled Blitzkrieg offensive but could also conduct its own offensives in all types of weather and terrain. German accounts of overwhelming Soviet forces are really a tribute to the Soviet ability to deceive their opponents and concentrate all available forces on a narrow frontage at an unpredictable point. As a result, the Red Army was able to decimate the Wehrmacht, establishing the overall numerical superiority that characterized the last two years of the war. Even then, however, Soviet manpower was not inexhaustible, and the Soviet commanders increasingly attempted to avoid expensive frontal assaults whenever possible. … Stalin began to trust his subordinates as professional experts. The all-powerful “representatives of the Stavka” gave way to separate front or multi-front commanders and their staffs. He had enough faith in the Red Army to allow it to conclude the war, knowing that his own prestige would only be enhanced by his superbly competent subordinates. These subordinates had developed their own procedures and techniques for conducting mechanized warfare on a massive scale. By 1944, the typical Soviet offensive was preceded by careful planning and deception measures, designed to concentrate forces at the designated breakthrough point. The attack began with a wave of reconnaissance battalions that infiltrated the German defenses and seized key positions, thereby rendering the rest of the German positions untenable. This infiltration was accompanied or followed by massive, carefully orchestrated air and artillery offensives. When the whirlwinds of artillery fire shifted from the front lines toward the German rear areas, infantry, heavy armor, and engineers conducted the conventional assault to eliminate the remaining centers of German resistance. As quickly as possible, senior Soviet commanders committed their mobile forces through the resulting gaps. Although the tank armies and separate mobile corps were large formations commanded by experienced general officers, much of their tactical success depended on the work of the young captains and majors who commanded the leading forward detachments. These highly mobile, combined-arms groups of 800 to 2,000 solders avoided pitched battle whenever possible, bypassing German defenders in order to establish large encirclements and seize the bridgeheads for the next offensive. Follow-on rifle forces, supported by the increasingly powerful Red Air Force, then reduced the German encirclements, while the mobile forces continued their exploitation. Throughout these offensives, the Rear Services performed prodigious feats of improvisation to keep the spearheads supplied even 400 kilometers behind enemy lines…”
David Glantz and Jonathan House, When Titans Clashed, PP. 286-289

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 17:59
Location: Europe

#141

Post by Qvist » 14 Apr 2005, 12:14

Hi Evzonas

Good compilation effort, but it is essentially pointless to take a median between a large number of figures of variable reliability. If the current state of reserach indicates anything, it is that the issue of military dead remains in dispute and subject to very substantial insecurities. Krivosheev's figures here appear to be under considerable pressure, but can on the other hand not reasonably be characterised as supplanted by anything better. On the German side, Rüdiger Overmans' has produced both the most thorough and the most recent study on deaths to date, but it too has drawn some cogent criticism. What is at any rate clear IMO is that its scope and method put his figure on a basis that is not comparable to that of, for example, Krivosheev's soviet figures. So, in conclusion, there are no available and reaosnably reliable military deaths figures for these two countries that can be reasonably compared.

If however one sticks to military losses in a more conventional sense (ie, killed in action, wounded and missing as reported contemporarily by the military formations and supplemented where neccessary by informed estimates), such comparison is more readily possible and feasible. But deaths? Might as well forget it.

cheers

Michate
Member
Posts: 1433
Joined: 02 Feb 2004, 11:50
Location: Germany

#142

Post by Michate » 14 Apr 2005, 15:54

Finnish losses during the whole Continuation War (6.1941 - 9.1944) were 60.605 KIA, 4.543 MIA and about 158.000 wounded (total number of woundings). The number of POWs is about correct but there has been claimed (also by Russians, for example Dr. Dmitri Frolov) that the actual number was bigger (included in the MIA figure). Actually about 1.000 of them were killed, executed or died in camps.

Total strength of the Finnish Army in the summer 1944 was not 200.000 men but about two and a half to three times bigger. Actual combat strength in June 1944 was about 235.000 men of which about 100.000 in Karelian Isthmus and 135.000 north from Lake Ladoga. In July 1944 strength in Karelian Isthmus was already 160.000 men and about 80.000 elsewhere.
Harri, thanks for the information, much appreciated, do you perhaps happen to have more figures for Finnish frontline strength during the continuation war (Glantz's figures for the Finns I have little faith in, Zetterling/Frankson give 210,000 - 230,000 in summer 1942 and summer 1943, based on a Finnish source, does this appear correct?).

Best regards,
Michael

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#143

Post by Victor » 14 Apr 2005, 15:56

Igorn wrote:Rumania - 480,000 (dead and missing) + 201,800 POWs
Missing in action also includes POWs. They are not two separate things. The "missing" is most likely "wounded".

Romanian casualties, according to national sources:

Killed in action: 71,585
Wounded in action: 243,622
Missing in action: 309,533*

*the figure includes around 130,000 POWs taken between 24 August – 12 September 1944, when the Romanian Army ceased to fight against the Red Army and was already engaged with Wehrmacht forces in side Romania and in Transylvania.

Source: Armata Romana in al doilea razboi mondial, Meridiane, Bucharest 1995

Given the fact that the Soviet sources report 201,800 Romanian POWs that leaves another 309,533-201,800=107,733 that
were killed in action or in transport to the Soviet POW camps and whose fate couldn't be determined exactly.

I noticed a certain uncalled aggressivity and rudeness in some of the posts in this section. For the sake of the discussion it would be better if we all could post in a civilized and polite manner.

User avatar
Kunikov
Member
Posts: 4455
Joined: 20 Jan 2004, 20:23
Contact:

#144

Post by Kunikov » 14 Apr 2005, 16:27

Qvist wrote:Hi Kunikov
The Red Army was by 1944 the better of the two, that's a fact.
Well - during this year, the overall numerical edge of the Red Army Fronts was between 2.6 to 1 (1st quarter) and 3.6 to 1 (4th quarter) when measured against the German forces, and they still incurred almost three times more combat losses than the Germans did - so whatever that estimation is, it is not a "fact".

Also, I don't really see what Evzonas has written to deserve such a vitriolic treatment.

cheers
The more men you have the more men you can lose. But as was posted, many times Germans were simply wrong. One of the more recent examples I've come across was in Armstrong's book "Red Army Legacies" when a tank corps was so beaten down that only one real brigade existed and the other two were simply created as 'phatom' brigades, the Germans still throught they were facing an entire tank corps...either that or it was on a tank army level, forgive me I cannot recall, in either case Soviet deception operations made the Red Army out to be a lot bigger than it was. Just another aspect of the Eastern Front that is glanced over.

User avatar
Kunikov
Member
Posts: 4455
Joined: 20 Jan 2004, 20:23
Contact:

#145

Post by Kunikov » 14 Apr 2005, 16:38

Evzonas wrote:
So according to you, 1000 oranges equal 1000 apples....
That is, sadly, according to you, and has nothing to do with what I've written.
I am not speaking about South or North. I am talking about the whole EAST front...
So are you saying they did not go on the offensive? The 'whole EAST front' hardly matters when concentrated forces outnumber those in front of them, now does it? Again, I put things in context, while you generalize.
Indeed, my mistake perhaps... only that there where no civilian population from the Axis side lost in the Eastern front and furthermore, SU was not carpet-bombed ... Even accepting the number of military losses you state in a previous post, there were 4 dead Russian for 1 Axis!
No civilian population lost on the East? Read about those accounts that say how 'savage' the Red Army was to the East Prussian population, you'll find enough deaths. Bottom line stands, do not mix civilian deaths with military.
I can't because I simply don't have enough sources to do so.. Since you are already spending time here with the rest of us and since you're already coppying from your books, it shouldn't take you hours to copy asked numbers; I am sure you don't like to.
It will take me hours to FIND THEM, and on a monthly basis, I don't know where to even look for those.

Ironicly no..... but I am sure if one could have access to first hand sources one could create an online database of confirmed military losses in WWII... obviously the sources are almost impossible to access for a common person like you and me and more obviously this is not a task for one man... but it is possible to create a 5x6 table showing military strength and losses for Axis and SU in the Eastern front... you have the books I don't.
I have some books, not all, even so numbers will never correspond, there will always bit a difference.

Was better in what terms? Numbers, quality of equipment, tactics, strength vs losses ratio, any combination of those???
It numbers it surpassed the Germans, in strategy, operational art, and tactics as well.

The more you post, the more I change my initial opinion about you.
I'm not here to please people.
I start thinking that just because you happen to have read some books I don't even have a chance getting that makes you superior to me.
If being more knowledgeable means 'superior' then that I am.
I also asked you to speak better. It is neither polite nor civilised to call what your opponent in a conversation says "nonsence". Keep this for readers to understand. In some cultures, such wording is insulting and I would kindly like to ask you if possible to stop using this short of words when answering any of my posts... If you don't feel comfortable discussing with me, or anyone who doesn't have the information you perhaps do in hand, then what is your reason posting at all?
That was why my answer was so short, after 10 pages you make the same claims which have already been disproven, you are a broken recorder SIR, you repeat and repeat and repeat without learning anything or taking into context new information given.
Are you trying to impress somebody or do you expect anybody to accept your opinion just by a few numbers you copy from a book of YOUR choice??
Let us see books of YOUR choice that say different.
As you well know, each side can present its own "sources" and usually the truth lies somewhere in the middle... I am using this forum to learn, I do have opinion but am willing to learn here and honestly, your contribution would be appreciated. But the attitude of yours is insulting me in such a point that I will simply stop posting anywhere you do. It is very sad that all you can say to someone who hasn't got a book of yours in hand is "go buy the book".... I am sorry but I had enough of this .....
They aren't my books and are readily available online, for one and all.

User avatar
armour
Member
Posts: 291
Joined: 06 Jun 2004, 07:23
Location: Canada

#146

Post by armour » 14 Apr 2005, 16:56

Evzonas, I noticed Overy's Military listing later and removed my post before you posted this. Either way 8.6 million Soviet *dead* is considered by many as the most reliable.

User avatar
Evzonas
Member
Posts: 664
Joined: 01 Jul 2004, 11:25
Location: Athens, Greece

#147

Post by Evzonas » 14 Apr 2005, 17:00

armour wrote:Evzonas, I noticed Overy's Military listing later and removed my post before you posted this. Either way 8.6 million Soviet *dead* is considered by many as the most reliable.
Military dead, right?

I so noticed.. if you like I can delete mine aswell...

User avatar
Steen Ammentorp
Member
Posts: 3269
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 13:48
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#148

Post by Steen Ammentorp » 14 Apr 2005, 17:22

A number of "emty" posts by Armour and Evzonas were deleted.

/Steen Ammentorp

Michate
Member
Posts: 1433
Joined: 02 Feb 2004, 11:50
Location: Germany

#149

Post by Michate » 14 Apr 2005, 17:48

The more men you have the more men you can lose. But as was posted, many times Germans were simply wrong. One of the more recent examples I've come across was in Armstrong's book "Red Army Legacies" when a tank corps was so beaten down that only one real brigade existed and the other two were simply created as 'phatom' brigades, the Germans still throught they were facing an entire tank corps...either that or it was on a tank army level, forgive me I cannot recall, in either case Soviet deception operations made the Red Army out to be a lot bigger than it was. Just another aspect of the Eastern Front that is glanced over.
If you compare German estimates of the Red Army size (taken from the same FHO reports Ziemke and/or Glantz used to determine German strength), they are regularly 10% - 20% lower than the figures given by Krivosheev or Glantz, being regularly in the area 5 - 6 million Red Army soldiers. E.g. 20. July 1943: FHO estimate - 5.7 million, Glantz - 6.6 million; 1. July 1944: FHO estimate - 5,06 million (later corrected to 5.72 million), Glantz - 6,6 million, November 1944: FHO estimate - 5.3 million, Glantz - 6.4 million. I have found only a single example where the German estimate of Soviet front strength was higher than Glantz's figures, 1. November 1941: FHO estimate - 2.3 million, Glantz - 2.2 million. One reason may be different inclusiveness but it does at least point against general overstimation of Soviet strength by the Germans, they seem to have rather underestimated Soviet strength on numerous occasions.

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 12:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

#150

Post by Harri » 14 Apr 2005, 18:06

Igorn wrote:
Harri wrote:Finnish losses during the whole Continuation War (6.1941 - 9.1944) were 60.605 KIA, 4.543 MIA and about 158.000 wounded (total number of woundings). The number of POWs is about correct but there has been claimed (also by Russians, for example Dr. Dmitri Frolov) that the actual number was bigger (included in the MIA figure). Actually about 1.000 of them were killed, executed or died in camps.
Probably Krivosheev also included dead and missing Finns in the Winter war in his statistics.
Yes, that could be the explanation. During the Winter War Finnish losses were 21.396 KIA, 1.434 MIA and 43.557 WIA (official figures). Total number of killed and lost Finnish soldiers (1939 - 1945) was about 84.000 men (KIA + MIA; bigger figures include probably civilian losses).
Igorn wrote:And some more statistics about Finnish losses in Winter war and "Continuation war" of 1944. Counting Finnish losses in WW2 vs. USSR to the number of dead and missing one should add 44,000 wounded in Winter war and 50,000 wounded and missing in "Continuation war"+ 47,500 war invalids and handicapped.
If we include the Finnish figures of Winter War then they should be added also to Soviet figures.

The figure 158.000 wounded (in Continuation War) I mentioned includes same soldiers as many times they wounded during the war. Finnish total losses (KIA, MIA, WIA) in 1944 were about 56.500 men of which 41.700 in Karelian Isthmus and 14.800 north from Lake Ladoga. The number of killed soldiers in Karelian Isthmus was 14.800 men.

Total number of invalids (1939 - 1945) was about 57.000 men of which about 7.000 died later one way or another because of their wounds and injuries.
Igorn wrote:
Harri wrote:The number of POWs is about correct but there has been claimed (also by Russians, for example Dr. Dmitri Frolov) that the actual number was bigger (included in the MIA figure). Actually about 1.000 of them were killed, executed or died in camps.
Didn't Finnish Army committed war crimes?
Where have I talked about crimes? :roll:

Our crimes have been investigated and criminals have been sentenced during and after the war. How about in USSR?

There are obscurities in Soviet records concerning Finnish POWs because many soldiers were sentenced of espionage, for example personnel of forced landed reconnaissance planes. Other Finnish soldiers had seen these men alive in Soviet camps but they never returned to Finland. The number of these cases is at least hundreds of men.
Igorn wrote:I want to remind to my Finnish friends...
Yes, we see these mostly off topic "reminders" all the time. This is not the correct thread for these discussions so I suggest staying on topic this time because there is at least as much reminding on the other side... :roll:

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”