Russian Military losses

Discussions on all aspects of the USSR, from the Russian Civil War till the end of the Great Patriotic War and the war against Japan. Hosted by Art.
User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 29 Apr 2004 10:07

Krivosheev thinks the maximum soviet military death toll was 8.7 mil.

This is based primarly by adding togeather reports from various fronts the numbers who died etc...
No this is based on the demographical calculations done by Moscow State University and classified by Krivosheev as demographical losses.
A russian major archivist in a much newer study says the number was 13.8 milllion.

This is based on individual card indexs entrily. He also is quoted in ericksons foward as disbeliving krivosheevs numbers. I've posted a link above to an article on this.
Corresponding number in Krivosheev book is 11444,100. I don’t know what Ericson disbelievd but in his books he used number that rather close to that of Krivosheev.
The diff from new card index and krivo death totals = 5.1 milllion

The diff from old card index and kiro death totals = 8.7 million


The idea that their might not be AN EXTREMLY LARGE problem with kiivosheevs offical maximum death total PRICELESS FANTASY.
What is really priceless here is utter failure on behalf of “we scientists” to comprehend basic math.

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Post by Qvist » 05 May 2004 11:56

P.S accidently form the link Darrin gave it seems that analogical German system was not all that functional either.
Correct - it wasn't. That is to say, it was generally accurate but it was also very slow. In the final part of the war, it naturally also lost accuracy. With the USSR, it would be a miraculous feat if such a system managed to catch the situation even approximately in 1941, I think.

cheers

Udet
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 23 Feb 2004 20:57
Location: Mexico City

ruddy ridiculous

Post by Udet » 03 Jul 2004 02:12

Deleted!
Last edited by Udet on 05 Oct 2004 22:20, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Re: ruddy ridiculous

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 03 Jul 2004 06:29

Udet wrote:Illiterate hogwash.

I have the book in question.

And all I have to say after reading it, and after reading the opinions of some members of this forum, is that if the authors, as well as some readers around here, really believe the tales they are talking about in the book, that is fine.

They have the universal freedom to do whatever they want with their time, and with their lives, and if they do think and do believe, they can tell the accurate number of Russian soldiers who were killed, missing, wounded or taken prisoner, well then!!

The forum already has one individual who is firmly convinced he can tell of the exact, precise, accurate, flawless number of soviet soldiers who got killed on every battle that was fought.

That´s their own business.
I guess if there is was some constructive criticism in the post above – I must have missed maybe mr. Udet will be so kind and elaborate on his point for us illiterates.

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Post by Qvist » 05 Jul 2004 08:42

Also, I am full of impatience to be enlightened about the results of the exhaustive reseach Mr. Udet must have performed in Russian archives to enable him to reach such a firm conclusion about Krivosheev's figures. :D

cheers

Karman
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 23 Aug 2004 10:39
Location: Russia

Post by Karman » 31 Aug 2004 16:07

Darrin wrote:Krivosheev thinks the maximum soviet military death toll was 8.7 mil.

This is based primarly by adding togeather reports from various fronts the numbers who died etc...

-----

A russian major archivist in a much newer study says the number was 13.8 milllion.

This is based on individual card indexs entrily. He also is quoted in ericksons foward as disbeliving krivosheevs numbers. I've posted a link above to an article on this.

-----

An older card index study also refererced in ericksons foward metions the number of 17.4 million.

This study is also based entrily on indiv card indexs. Erickson providies a referces to this article which I provided from a scan page above.


------------


The diff from new card index and krivo death totals = 5.1 milllion

The diff from old card index and kiro death totals = 8.7 million


The idea that their might not be AN EXTREMLY LARGE problem with kiivosheevs offical maximum death total PRICELESS FANTASY.
Update info: Sergey A. Ilienkov got his new rank: colonel. his is the deputy chief editor of "Voenno-Istorcheskiy Archive". For 13 years he worked in Central Archive of Defense Ministry (TsAMO). First he insisted on the figures: 13.850k not KIA (as you say) but also KIA plus MIA. Author has corrected his output after excluding some repeating and corrupt cards recently. The magazine reported about that in one of recent editions. Update figures are about 11 million irrecoverable losses.

Should be noted also that though the Author worked in the TsAMO for many years he wrote the article for a 100% private magazine that had no connection with the TsAMO official reports. Krivoshhev headed a group of professionals ordered by Government and whom I believe classified the data in proper and efficient manner.

But if you are still bloodthirsty tonight choose B. Sokolov. Price Of War, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, vol. 9. No 1 (March 1996). The guy insists that the Russian military death toll is 26 million. Actually there are no limits for people supporting the myth that Russian hordes won because they smothered the enemy with meat.

On the other hand an American demographist S. Maksudov independently came to approximately same figures as Krivosheev without having any access to Russian military archives. After getting acquainted with Krivosheev data and method Maksudov lowered his figures down to 7,8 million of Russian military irrecoverable losses. he said that Krivosheev missed the natural mortality rate, increased the rate of POW dead in German camps and ignored the fact that many POW returned home missing the NKVD filtration camps.

Actually definition of the correlation of forces on both sides and the kill rates as I presume is a full time job. Germans prefer to count their total losses basing on the German state borders of 1937 excluding both their allies and Germans from the territorial acquisitions. Some researchers say that from 500.000 up to 2.000.000 soviet citizens fought on the German side against Moscow but all of them are listed as rus cas. Romanians drafted Moldavians into Romanian army but they are also registered as rus cas. German allies count their people who voluntarily joined Germans as non-combatant cas. About 5.5 million soviet citizens refuged from the SU after WW2 but all of them are included in the Russian irrevocable losses. Every nation tries to minimize its recorded losses and only Russians (save Jews) intend to maximize them. In good sooth we are the nation with a vagarious past.

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Post by Qvist » 31 Aug 2004 19:09

Actually definition of the correlation of forces on both sides and the kill rates as I presume is a full time job. Germans prefer to count their total losses basing on the German state borders of 1937 excluding both their allies and Germans from the territorial acquisitions. Some researchers say that from 500.000 up to 2.000.000 soviet citizens fought on the German side against Moscow but all of them are listed as rus cas. Romanians drafted Moldavians into Romanian army but they are also registered as rus cas. German allies count their people who voluntarily joined Germans as non-combatant cas. About 5.5 million soviet citizens refuged from the SU after WW2 but all of them are included in the Russian irrevocable losses. Every nation tries to minimize its recorded losses and only Russians (save Jews) intend to maximize them. In good sooth we are the nation with a vagarious past.
Thank you for a very interesting post generally, but I do not understand how this can be correct. As far as I know, Krivosheev established his figures not on the basis of demographic calculations, but on the basis of the loss reports of Red Army formations. So, how could natural mortality rates, Soviet citizens fighting on the German side, Moldavians in the Romanian army or post-war refugees factor into this?

Also, what you say about how German losses have been established fundamentally pertains just specifically to Rüdiger Overmans study, which is demographically based and to which, incidentally, the objection of failureto account for natural mortality rates would be a legitimate objection. The contemporary casualty figures that can be read out of the archival documentation does not exclude Germans born outside the 1937 borders, nor do they exclude Volksdeutsche from the Balkans.
Update info: Sergey A. Ilienkov got his new rank: colonel. his is the deputy chief editor of "Voenno-Istorcheskiy Archive". For 13 years he worked in Central Archive of Defense Ministry (TsAMO). First he insisted on the figures: 13.850k not KIA (as you say) but also KIA plus MIA. Author has corrected his output after excluding some repeating and corrupt cards recently. The magazine reported about that in one of recent editions. Update figures are about 11 million irrecoverable losses.
I believe Darrin correct here (below) in pointing out Ilienkovs figure of 11 million are not for irrecoverable losses, but just deaths.
But if you are still bloodthirsty tonight choose B. Sokolov. Price Of War, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, vol. 9. No 1 (March 1996). The guy insists that the Russian military death toll is 26 million. Actually there are no limits for people supporting the myth that Russian hordes won because they smothered the enemy with meat
.

Surely this must be a misunderstanding? Sokolov's figure must reasonably have referred to all deaths, not just military?
On the other hand an American demographist S. Maksudov independently came to approximately same figures as Krivosheev without having any access to Russian military archives. After getting acquainted with Krivosheev data and method Maksudov lowered his figures down to 7,8 million of Russian military irrecoverable losses. he said that Krivosheev missed the natural mortality rate, increased the rate of POW dead in German camps and ignored the fact that many POW returned home missing the NKVD filtration camps.
Here again there must be some misunderstanding on your part. 7.8 million deaths is one thing, 7.8 million irrecoverable casualties makes no sense whatsoever, given the large number of POWs and the overall scope of casualties (some 30 million). By the way - already as it is, it is somewhat difficult to concile Overmans' figures and Krivosheev's, unless a much larger proportion of the German casualties resulted in deaths than was the case with the soviets, for which it is hard to envisage any very good reason. This is perhaps not in itself very surprising given the fundamentally different methods employed by the two, but this does suggest in my opinion that it would be no great surprise if Krivosheev's figure of deaths should be adjusted somewhat upwards. That though remains to be seen.

(Edited)

cheers
Last edited by Qvist on 31 Aug 2004 21:25, edited 1 time in total.

Darrin
Member
Posts: 831
Joined: 17 Apr 2002 10:44
Location: Canada

Post by Darrin » 31 Aug 2004 20:17

Karman wrote:
Update info: Sergey A. Ilienkov got his new rank: colonel. his is the deputy chief editor of "Voenno-Istorcheskiy Archive". For 13 years he worked in Central Archive of Defense Ministry (TsAMO). First he insisted on the figures: 13.850k not KIA (as you say) but also KIA plus MIA. Author has corrected his output after excluding some repeating and corrupt cards recently. The magazine reported about that in one of recent editions. Update figures are about 11 million irrecoverable losses.

Should be noted also that though the Author worked in the TsAMO for many years he wrote the article for a 100% private magazine that had no connection with the TsAMO official reports. Krivoshhev headed a group of professionals ordered by Government and whom I believe classified the data in proper and efficient manner.

But if you are still bloodthirsty tonight choose B. Sokolov. Price Of War, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, vol. 9. No 1 (March 1996). The guy insists that the Russian military death toll is 26 million. Actually there are no limits for people supporting the myth that Russian hordes won because they smothered the enemy with meat.

On the other hand an American demographist S. Maksudov independently came to approximately same figures as Krivosheev without having any access to Russian military archives. After getting acquainted with Krivosheev data and method Maksudov lowered his figures down to 7,8 million of Russian military irrecoverable losses. he said that Krivosheev missed the natural mortality rate, increased the rate of POW dead in German camps and ignored the fact that many POW returned home missing the NKVD filtration camps.

Actually definition of the correlation of forces on both sides and the kill rates as I presume is a full time job. Germans prefer to count their total losses basing on the German state borders of 1937 excluding both their allies and Germans from the territorial acquisitions. Some researchers say that from 500.000 up to 2.000.000 soviet citizens fought on the German side against Moscow but all of them are listed as rus cas. Romanians drafted Moldavians into Romanian army but they are also registered as rus cas. German allies count their people who voluntarily joined Germans as non-combatant cas. About 5.5 million soviet citizens refuged from the SU after WW2 but all of them are included in the Russian irrevocable losses. Every nation tries to minimize its recorded losses and only Russians (save Jews) intend to maximize them. In good sooth we are the nation with a vagarious past.


The translation of the article I read and posted said 13.8 mil dead. Not 13.8 mil dead and mias. Although if they defined the new MIAs as people never heard from after the war then dead it may be.

I will reserve judgment about any updates until I get it from a less russian biased source.

Nor is sokolov some western biased historian he is a rus historian who published this article in the journal edited by Glantz. One of the most russianophials I know.

No one has to be bloodthirtsy tonight or any other night. As even kirosheevs offical total cas suffered by the rus was at least 4 times the ger EF cas on avg. And that is despite having significant adv in numbers at the front as well.

The ger counted everybody they dfrafted into thier army which by def was within its own borders. They may have drafted people outside thier border but accouted for these as well. The numbers were small and the combat abilites of certain groups suspect.

Obviuosly the ger counted the number of ger cas and if a rum was injured he would be couted by the rum. Who also eventally fought alongside the rus aginst the ger during the last part of the war. Perhaps the force corelation and cas ratio is not 100% exact as it did not include everything. Nothing is ever 100% accurate it was however within 10% of the numbers given by the rus and ger.

Karman
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 23 Aug 2004 10:39
Location: Russia

Post by Karman » 01 Sep 2004 12:31

Qvist wrote:Thank you for a very interesting post generally, but I do not understand how this can be correct. As far as I know, Krivosheev established his figures not on the basis of demographic calculations, but on the basis of the loss reports of Red Army formations. So, how could natural mortality rates, Soviet citizens fighting on the German side, Moldavians in the Romanian army or post-war refugees factor into this?
Sorry for confusing you with the statements. Definitely Krivosheev based his research on the loss reports of RKKA units so his research does not have anything to do with Soviests fightig on the Geramn side and Moldavians in the Romanian army. I just meant that they are included in the general rus cas. Mea culpa.

Maksudov said that the total losses of KIA and dead POW should be calculated minus the average natural mortality rate as people mentionned in the reports were not only killed but died of natural causes (some of them were about 50).
Also, what you say about how German losses have been established fundamentally pertains just specifically to Rüdiger Overmans study, which is demographically based and to which, incidentally, the objection of failureto account for natural mortality rates would be a legitimate objection. The contemporary casualty figures that can be read out of the archival documentation does not exclude Germans born outside the 1937 borders, nor do they exclude Volksdeutsche from the Balkans.
Can't complain. But not everything is clear for me about the German losses. Correct the figures if I am not right. German army counted 3.214k servicemen as for March 1, 1939; Also 17.893k were drafted during the period from June 1, 1939 till April 30, 1945; Sum: about 21,1k servicemen total; 2.000k were directed to the industry; 2.310k were invalided from service, charged, deserted etc; About 3.357k got POW before May 9, 1945; Also 4,500k surrended after May 9, 1945; KIA and died of wounds - 3.810k. We have about 4.500k people disappeared. Where are they?
I believe Darrin correct here (below) in pointing out Ilienkovs figure of 11 million are not for irrecoverable losses, but just deaths.
In the Russian text of his article Ilienkov used "безвозвратные потери" and that means irrevocable losses

Quote:
"Мы получаем цифру безвозвратных потерь наших Вооруженных Сил за время Великой Отечественной войны около 13 млн. 850 тысяч человек"
translation: we got the figures of irrevocable losses of our Armed Forces during the period of Great Patriotic War of about 13 mln 850 thousand people" (http://conmit.electronics.kiae.ru/war/j ... -2_0-5.asp)

So when they came down to figures about 11 million they got very close to Krivosheev's irrevocable losses of about 11 million too (and then he excludes those who were liberated).
Surely this must be a misunderstanding? Sokolov's figure must reasonably have referred to all deaths, not just military?
.

Nope. He claims that the total death rate is 43.448k and 26.548k are military death rate. (http://www.genstab.ru/kia39-45.htm) Unfortunatley in Russian. There is also the reference to the criticism of his method there. Which is 100% crap (I mean the method not criticism).
Here again there must be some misunderstanding on your part. 7.8 million deaths is one thing, 7.8 million irrecoverable casualties makes no sense whatsoever, given the large number of POWs and the overall scope of casualties (some 30 million). By the way - already as it is, it is somewhat difficult to concile Overmans' figures and Krivosheev's, unless a much larger proportion of the German casualties resulted in deaths than was the case with the soviets, for which it is hard to envisage any very good reason. This is perhaps not in itself very surprising given the fundamentally different methods employed by the two, but this does suggest in my opinion that it would be no great surprise if Krivosheev's figure of deaths should be adjusted somewhat upwards. That though remains to be seen.
Again, you are right - 7,8million is a death rate not irrevocable losses. But I cannot agree with yourt overall scope of casualties among Soviet citizens (30 million).

The total population of SU in 1941 was 196,7 mln. The total population of SU in 1945 - 170,5 mln. people, including those who were born before 22.06.1941 - 159,5 mln. Total loss rate during the period of war - 37,2 mln. Mortality rate of infants born after 22.06.1941 - 1,3 mln. Average natural mortality rate (1,3% as for 1940) for the whole period of war - minimum 11,9 million. Total war casualties of the USSR (37,2 + 1,3 - 11,9) - 26,6 million people. (Krivosheev - The data was provided by GOSKOMSTAT - Russian State Statistcs Committee). But we should exclude from those figures the refuges from the Soviet Union (2,5 million Poles, 1,75 mln Germans, 0,25 mln Baltic people plus other nations total about 5,5 mln people - Narody Rossii, Enciclopedia, M. 1994, p. 61). So in the result the total death toll caused by war is about 21 million. So the rigid and infallible Comrad Stalin was as sure as rifle when he dropped that the Soviet people lost 20 mln people in the war. I presume he knew what happened to the extra 1mln (they were spying around abroad).

Karman
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 23 Aug 2004 10:39
Location: Russia

Post by Karman » 01 Sep 2004 13:07

Darrin wrote: No one has to be bloodthirtsy tonight or any other night. As even kirosheevs offical total cas suffered by the rus was at least 4 times the ger EF cas on avg. And that is despite having significant adv in numbers at the front as well
If you are not hunting the truth but pursue the objective to compare whose "truth" was harder, thicker and steady you should not compare the death tolls of both armies but the irrevocable losses. According to your method the Russian army was worse because they were endured to the end in 1941-1942 ans spoiled their death rate. On the other hand German army was better because they surrendered in 1945 and improved the death toll. Also Russians should have been killed much more POW to ameliorate their key figures. That cannot be serious.

Darrin
Member
Posts: 831
Joined: 17 Apr 2002 10:44
Location: Canada

Post by Darrin » 01 Sep 2004 13:27

Karman wrote:
Darrin wrote: No one has to be bloodthirtsy tonight or any other night. As even kirosheevs offical total cas suffered by the rus was at least 4 times the ger EF cas on avg. And that is despite having significant adv in numbers at the front as well
If you are not hunting the truth but pursue the objective to compare whose "truth" was harder, thicker and steady you should not compare the death tolls of both armies but the irrevocable losses. According to your method the Russian army was worse because they were endured to the end in 1941-1942 ans spoiled their death rate. On the other hand German army was better because they surrendered in 1945 and improved the death toll. Also Russians should have been killed much more POW to ameliorate their key figures. That cannot be serious.


Actual that is total military cas ie kia, mia and wia. Not just dead or irecoverable.

Even in '43 the ger had an adv in tot cas ratio of 1:4.91 and in '44 it dropped to 1:3.53. That is comparing kirosheevs semioffical numbers with the real ger numbers reported by thier army.

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 01 Sep 2004 13:32

And it is completely ignoring Axis Allied losses.

3.53 - what lovely precision. Arrived at ignoring hundreds of thousands of Axis Allied losses in 1944 but including the losses inflicted on the Soviets by the Axis Allies.

As Jack Aubrey would say - 'What stuff.' :roll:

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Post by Qvist » 01 Sep 2004 13:34

Hello Karman!

Hehe, these posts of ours are certainly examples of how easily misunderstandings can occur in this area.
Sorry for confusing you with the statements. Definitely Krivosheev based his research on the loss reports of RKKA units so his research does not have anything to do with Soviests fightig on the Geramn side and Moldavians in the Romanian army. I just meant that they are included in the general rus cas. Mea culpa.

Maksudov said that the total losses of KIA and dead POW should be calculated minus the average natural mortality rate as people mentionned in the reports were not only killed but died of natural causes (some of them were about 50).
Ok. Maksudov's point does not seem very reasonable though - I don't think many POWs died of natural causes unrelated to their circumstances, and for KIAs this seems even more absurd. It hardly matters much that a certain number of people would statistically have died anyway, given that they in actuality overwhelmingly must have died for war-related reasons - and in any case, a person who dies while a soldier is by definition a military death. With Overmans, the point pertains more to the fact that he is considering any German man of military age that is not accounted for by the German authorities in the late forties to have died during the war as a military casualty - thus he is including people who died from natural causes afterMay 1945 and who were not POWs.
Can't complain. But not everything is clear for me about the German losses. Correct the figures if I am not right. German army counted 3.214k servicemen as for March 1, 1939; Also 17.893k were drafted during the period from June 1, 1939 till April 30, 1945; Sum: about 21,1k servicemen total; 2.000k were directed to the industry; 2.310k were invalided from service, charged, deserted etc; About 3.357k got POW before May 9, 1945; Also 4,500k surrended after May 9, 1945; KIA and died of wounds - 3.810k. We have about 4.500k people disappeared. Where are they?
I have no idea where they are, or rather, if there is really anything that is missing. Trying to work back from tabulated figures of mobilised manpower is a sure way of becoming irrevocably stuck - unless you have a vVERY precise idea of exactly what each figure includes and what it doesn't and can make an investigation a la Krivosheev, drawing on material that essentially accounts for everything. There are multiple possibilities for why that calculation does not add up, not least the accuracy and above all the completeness of all of those figures. You would need to have an exceptionally thorough basis of data to be able to proceed with any confidence down this route.

Anyway - not everything is clear to me either (or to anyone else for that matter) concerning the German losses. But the same type of data that Krivosheev uses for the soviet side - the internal documentation - does provide a coherent and internally consistent picture of strength, losses and personnel/unit movements, for as long as the system functioned ( until approximately december 1944). And these data leave no room for another 4.5 million casualties. I presumed your 3.8 million figure referred to Overmans' figure for the Eastern Front?

In the Russian text of his article Ilienkov used "безвозвратные потери" and that means irrevocable losses

Quote:
"Мы получаем цифру безвозвратных потерь наших Вооруженных Сил за время Великой Отечественной войны около 13 млн. 850 тысяч человек"
translation: we got the figures of irrevocable losses of our Armed Forces during the period of Great Patriotic War of about 13 mln 850 thousand people" (http://conmit.electronics.kiae.ru/war/j ... -2_0-5.asp)

So when they came down to figures about 11 million they got very close to Krivosheev's irrevocable losses of about 11 million too (and then he excludes those who were liberated).
Hm - that is interesting. Perhaps we are not thinking about the same researcher? I shall have to look back at it.
Nope. He claims that the total death rate is 43.448k and 26.548k are military death rate. (http://www.genstab.ru/kia39-45.htm) Unfortunatley in Russian. There is also the reference to the criticism of his method there. Which is 100% crap (I mean the method not criticism).
Good grief! I look forward to seeing how he can have arrived at that!
Again, you are right - 7,8million is a death rate not irrevocable losses. But I cannot agree with yourt overall scope of casualties among Soviet citizens (30 million).
No! I meant Krivosheev's figure for overall military casualties (ie, dead, missing, wounded and sick) - 29.6 million through 1945. If you compare this with Krivosheev's figure of dead, and then the German overall casualties in the East with Overmans' figures for German deaths, the picture is anomalous in the sense that while Overmans' figure is more than 40% of the German casualties, Krivosheev's figure is less than a third of the Soviet casualties (with the approx. 3 million sick taken out).
The total population of SU in 1941 was 196,7 mln. The total population of SU in 1945 - 170,5 mln. people, including those who were born before 22.06.1941 - 159,5 mln. Total loss rate during the period of war - 37,2 mln. Mortality rate of infants born after 22.06.1941 - 1,3 mln. Average natural mortality rate (1,3% as for 1940) for the whole period of war - minimum 11,9 million. Total war casualties of the USSR (37,2 + 1,3 - 11,9) - 26,6 million people. (Krivosheev - The data was provided by GOSKOMSTAT - Russian State Statistcs Committee). But we should exclude from those figures the refuges from the Soviet Union (2,5 million Poles, 1,75 mln Germans, 0,25 mln Baltic people plus other nations total about 5,5 mln people - Narody Rossii, Enciclopedia, M. 1994, p. 61). So in the result the total death toll caused by war is about 21 million. So the rigid and infallible Comrad Stalin was as sure as rifle when he dropped that the Soviet people lost 20 mln people in the war. I presume he knew what happened to the extra 1mln (they were spying around abroad).
See above - I did not mean 30 million dead citizens - but thanks for the figures anyway. One thing though, I thought the 1939 census put the population figure at somewhat closer to 200 million?

cheers

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Post by Qvist » 01 Sep 2004 14:13

And it is completely ignoring Axis Allied losses.

3.53 - what lovely precision. Arrived at ignoring hundreds of thousands of Axis Allied losses in 1944 but including the losses inflicted on the Soviets by the Axis Allies.

As Jack Aubrey would say - 'What stuff.'
Well, let's not get into that again besides noting your point as well as the one that there are also problems in this regard with including them - but I just wanted to say that Darrin here quotes the comparison made in Zetterling's Normandy book, and that there are some concerns with this comparison who seem likely to have much more impact than this issue in 1944, namely that the German losses are blutige land forces losses while the Soviet include non-combat and air force casualties. All in all, sick account for some 10% of the overall Soviet casualties and if this is representative for 1944 it would imply roughly 700,000 casualties of this type. So it may be more justified to assume a Soviet-German ratio around 1:3 for the year 1944. I would strongly suspect that the simple comparison made by Zetterling was not intended as a ratio that could be quoted with finality and two decimals, as you say.

And don't you quote Jack Aubrey at me, or I'll counter with an uncommon horrible pun that you may smoke, but which will leave you shaking your head. :lol:

cheers

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 01 Sep 2004 14:25

In which case I would have to consider asking you to meet me with your second at a place of your choosing.

As you know, we seem to agree to a large degree on the matter of inclusion/exclusion of Allied casualties. I.e. it is unsatisfactory either way, and while the error introduced by not including them is certainly not irrelevant, it is unlikely to be very significant either. We just don't know.

Would that be an adequate summary?

What I object to is not the production of a casualty ratio on the basis of excluding Allied losses, but the air of absolute precision introduced by quoting a number to two decimals, when it is perfectly clear that the error will be significant at that level. If someone said, as you did '~3:1', or 'between '3-4:1', that would be a much better way of approaching the subject.

Return to “The Soviet Union at War 1917-1945”