Importance of eastern front

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
Karri
Member
Posts: 513
Joined: 07 Nov 2003 20:41
Location: Dublin

Post by Karri » 08 May 2005 21:38

Kunikov wrote:
Karri wrote:Kunikov, will you finally give some evidence or are you just going to boast how we are wrong and 1945 is so and so important and etc. etc.?

I mean, in every single thread you are shouting for evidence whenever anyone mentions the russians, but I have yet to see you present any credible evidence in any of them.
That's because I haven't claimed anything. Your original point still stands, without proof it is just an exaggeration on your part, meaning your ignorance of the subject matter is showing.
You haven't? Gee, I thought that just few posts ago you claimed that I was manipulating the data because I didn't include 1945 in my calculations. You also claimed that in 1945 Germany suffered millions of casualties. I'd like you to prove both, especially that by not including 1945 I was manipulating the data to fit my argument that without Western Allies Germany could have won the attrition warfare.

User avatar
Kunikov
Member
Posts: 4455
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 19:23

Post by Kunikov » 08 May 2005 21:41

Karri wrote:
Kunikov wrote: That's because I haven't claimed anything. Your original point still stands, without proof it is just an exaggeration on your part, meaning your ignorance of the subject matter is showing.
You haven't? Gee, I thought that just few posts ago you claimed that I was manipulating the data because I didn't include 1945 in my calculations. You also claimed that in 1945 Germany suffered millions of casualties. I'd like you to prove both, especially that by not including 1945 I was manipulating the data to fit my argument that without Western Allies Germany could have won the attrition warfare.
Burden of proof is on you, if you don't now the numbers and statistics then don't bring them up. And once more you are manipulating the data since you included those MIA's who weren't really MIA and those POW's who returned. You can keep going in circles, but it's clear what your agenda here is.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6881
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Post by Michael Kenny » 08 May 2005 21:42

Not to interupt but wouldn't Germany have run out of land before Russia ran out of men?

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

Post by Qvist » 08 May 2005 21:45

I see a big problem with your quest for some "most accurate" ratio for casualties in this Russo-German war. If it was a game of chess, Qvist where both opponents are well aware of the RULES, who moves first and so on then such comparisons that you like to make could be useful in evaluating who's war-making style is better or who's better etc. As we all know Germans didn't play by the rules right from start - they broke all the rules that ever even existed in that war, therefore winning is all that counts. If you want to determine who's better then it would be Russians because ultimately they won.
I think you'll find that it would be exactly the type of judgement made in that last sentence that presupposes a view of war as analogous to a game of chess. :) I really do not see what is the issue here, nor am I on a quest for some "more accurate ratio for casualties" (More accurate than what? More accurate than "90% of German and Axis casualties took place in the East" (Overy, I should think?)? It does not require a quest to find something more accurate than that, it just requires a proper source, which fortunately I happened to have).

I simply think that if you are going to employ loss figures as an element of analysis - which is more or less inevitable, and which you among others have also done in this discussion - then the figures used should be as accurate as possible, and derive from as reliable sources as possible. As for war being a game of chess and "playing according to rules", I quite frankly haven't any idea what you are talking about - neither notion makes the least sense to me.

cheers
Last edited by Qvist on 08 May 2005 22:17, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by Qvist » 08 May 2005 21:47

Hello Michael
Not to interupt but wouldn't Germany have run out of land before Russia ran out of men?
Precisely! Thus the USSR were not losing the war by attrition.

cheers

Karri
Member
Posts: 513
Joined: 07 Nov 2003 20:41
Location: Dublin

Post by Karri » 08 May 2005 21:54

Kunikov wrote:
Karri wrote:
Kunikov wrote: That's because I haven't claimed anything. Your original point still stands, without proof it is just an exaggeration on your part, meaning your ignorance of the subject matter is showing.
You haven't? Gee, I thought that just few posts ago you claimed that I was manipulating the data because I didn't include 1945 in my calculations. You also claimed that in 1945 Germany suffered millions of casualties. I'd like you to prove both, especially that by not including 1945 I was manipulating the data to fit my argument that without Western Allies Germany could have won the attrition warfare.
Burden of proof is on you, if you don't now the numbers and statistics then don't bring them up. And once more you are manipulating the data since you included those MIA's who weren't really MIA and those POW's who returned. You can keep going in circles, but it's clear what your agenda here is.
If you claim something then the burden of proof is on you. I already proved my point as far as it could be proved. It's now your turn to prove what you claimed. It's not me who's going in circles...

User avatar
Kunikov
Member
Posts: 4455
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 19:23

Post by Kunikov » 08 May 2005 21:55

Karri wrote:
Kunikov wrote:
Karri wrote:
Kunikov wrote: That's because I haven't claimed anything. Your original point still stands, without proof it is just an exaggeration on your part, meaning your ignorance of the subject matter is showing.
You haven't? Gee, I thought that just few posts ago you claimed that I was manipulating the data because I didn't include 1945 in my calculations. You also claimed that in 1945 Germany suffered millions of casualties. I'd like you to prove both, especially that by not including 1945 I was manipulating the data to fit my argument that without Western Allies Germany could have won the attrition warfare.
Burden of proof is on you, if you don't now the numbers and statistics then don't bring them up. And once more you are manipulating the data since you included those MIA's who weren't really MIA and those POW's who returned. You can keep going in circles, but it's clear what your agenda here is.
If you claim something then the burden of proof is on you. I already proved my point as far as it could be proved. It's now your turn to prove what you claimed. It's not me who's going in circles...
Then this discussion is over, since you haven't proven anything.

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

Post by Qvist » 08 May 2005 22:11

Hello Kunikov
I don't omit or forget who suffered more or less, I simply try to understand why. When it comes down to it, a man is a man, one can do just as well as another while the the officer corps, the leaders, the weapons, the technology, and too many other aspects play a larger role in deciding who will suffer more and who will suffer less. I doubt I'm explaining myself as well as I could be simply because I haven't really argued this point before and it is still developing for me.
Well, if I understand you correctly, I would say that what you say here is correct enough in itself, as far as I can see. I don't know if I'm explaining myself as well as I could either, but I don't think anyone implies that performance is a direct reflection of the inherent qualities of the individual soldiers, rather it is an issue of organisational effectiveness, to use that word. All the elements you mention and many more besides facor into that, but most of these are so to speak constituent components of performance, not extraneous factors to it. As such, they may be part of an explanation for the performance, but they do not alter what that performance was (which one must determine before starting to explain why it was what it was, no?). To use a somewhat clumsy metaphor and to speak on the level of the logic of the concept itself, organisational effectiveness is like output per unit, practical effect per man or weapons system employed. Also, losses are not an automatic and direct measure. They tell us something, but they do of course not tell us everything. But the thing with the losses in the East is that they are so consistently lopsided, and lopsided on such a great scale, hence the conclusion they imply is also unusually clear, practically to the point of obviousness, in my honest opinion - they more or less speak for themselves, which is unusual. Oh well, I hope that's more or less intelligible, I seem to have aquired a knack for giving people the impression that this is all very theoretical, which it is really not (though the conceptual logic involved of course is, by definition. But that would be just as true if we were discussing the analysis of how cheese tastes :)).


cheers

Karri
Member
Posts: 513
Joined: 07 Nov 2003 20:41
Location: Dublin

Post by Karri » 08 May 2005 23:39

Kunikov wrote:
Karri wrote:
Kunikov wrote:
Karri wrote:
Kunikov wrote: That's because I haven't claimed anything. Your original point still stands, without proof it is just an exaggeration on your part, meaning your ignorance of the subject matter is showing.
You haven't? Gee, I thought that just few posts ago you claimed that I was manipulating the data because I didn't include 1945 in my calculations. You also claimed that in 1945 Germany suffered millions of casualties. I'd like you to prove both, especially that by not including 1945 I was manipulating the data to fit my argument that without Western Allies Germany could have won the attrition warfare.
Burden of proof is on you, if you don't now the numbers and statistics then don't bring them up. And once more you are manipulating the data since you included those MIA's who weren't really MIA and those POW's who returned. You can keep going in circles, but it's clear what your agenda here is.
If you claim something then the burden of proof is on you. I already proved my point as far as it could be proved. It's now your turn to prove what you claimed. It's not me who's going in circles...
Then this discussion is over, since you haven't proven anything.
Well that's a nice argument, but it's not really evidence. Do I actualy have to tell you what evidence is? I mean it does seem like you have no idea what it is.


EDIT:
And furthermore I did prove that during 1941 to 1944 the average casualty ratio was 3,86 soviets per 1 german. The thing you must undrestand is, that when I say 1941 to 1944 I don't really mean 1941 to 1945. Furthermore just to make myself clear, when I say 1941 to 1944 I mean years 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944. See, no 1945 there.

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

Post by armour » 09 May 2005 01:24

I think you'll find that it would be exactly the type of judgement made in that last sentence that presupposes a view of war as analogous to a game of chess. I really do not see what is the issue here, nor am I on a quest for some "more accurate ratio for casualties" (More accurate than what? More accurate than "90% of German and Axis casualties took place in the East" (Overy, I should think?)? It does not require a quest to find something more accurate than that, it just requires a proper source, which fortunately I happened to have).

I simply think that if you are going to employ loss figures as an element of analysis - which is more or less inevitable, and which you among others have also done in this discussion - then the figures used should be as accurate as possible, and derive from as reliable sources as possible. As for war being a game of chess and "playing according to rules", I quite frankly haven't any idea what you are talking about - neither notion makes the least sense to me
No Qvist, you see, in a game of Chess people play by well known *RULES*, The Germans followed no rules at all therefore all such comparisons you are making regarding the loss ratio are practically *useless* for determination of which side was better, smarter, more efficient...the RULES on both sides were entirely different with Germans having ALL the advantage throughout the initial part of the WAR - which added to their advantage through the rest of the war which they wouldn't have had if they didn't achieve things in the initial part of war mainly due to that ADVANTAGE which they had and Russians didn't. As for your comment then that judgement is applied to *any* mortal struggle and I am correct by saying that winning in MORTAL struggle is all that counts because one opponent survives and the other dies...

Overy says something like "more than 80%" German and Axis(or just German - can't remember now) happened on the Eastern Front.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4508901.stm
well this isn't much of a source but this is all I got for now, don't have time to go to library today. In this article mr Falin says 93% German casualties happened on Eastern Front. The way I see is that I was in fact being very generous by saying that only 90% casualties happened on Eastern Front. Generally I'll have to dig deeper into this question to find out exact number, but I don't have time for that right now, 90% sounds good enough to me... Your number is up to DEC 1944 only BTW...

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

Post by Qvist » 09 May 2005 07:45

No Qvist, you see, in a game of Chess people play by well known *RULES*, The Germans followed no rules at all therefore all such comparisons you are making regarding the loss ratio are practically *useless* for determination of which side was better, smarter, more efficient...the RULES on both sides were entirely different with Germans having ALL the advantage throughout the initial part of the WAR - which added to their advantage through the rest of the war which they wouldn't have had if they didn't achieve things in the initial part of war mainly due to that ADVANTAGE which they had and Russians didn't.
Well, to put it simply- What on earth are you talking about? None of this makes any sense whatsoever to me.
Overy says something like "more than 80%" German and Axis(or just German - can't remember now) happened on the Eastern Front.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4508901.stm
well this isn't much of a source but this is all I got for now, don't have time to go to library today. In this article mr Falin says 93% German casualties happened on Eastern Front. The way I see is that I was in fact being very generous by saying that only 90% casualties happened on Eastern Front. Generally I'll have to dig deeper into this question to find out exact number, but I don't have time for that right now, 90% sounds good enough to me... Your number is up to DEC 1944 only BTW...
Yes, but again, for 1945 to adjust that upwards, a considerably larger proportion than 77% of the 1945 losses would have had to have been in the East, and they were not - almost certainly the opposite was the case. And just out of curiosity, what exactly is wrong with the exact number I have already quoted? You argue that a certain percentage of losses taking place in the East is "a Fact" on the basis of a BBC online article?!
The way I see is that I was in fact being very generous by saying that only 90% casualties happened on Eastern Front
No, you were being very inaccurate, even relative to your own worthless source. And if this is going to be another amazing display of stubbornness over sense, I'd rather we just drop it right now.

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

Post by armour » 09 May 2005 08:27

Well, to put it simply- What on earth are you talking about? None of this makes any sense whatsoever to me.
Well put it simply considering that you are the only one clueless here you'll have to ask me politely and then maybe I'll bother explaining it to you again, it's not my fault that you don't understand anything...
Yes, but again, for 1945 to adjust that upwards, a considerably larger proportion than 77% of the 1945 losses would have had to have been in the East, and they were not - almost certainly the opposite was the case. And just out of curiosity, what exactly is wrong with the exact number I have already quoted? You argue that a certain percentage of losses taking place in the East is "a Fact" on the basis of a BBC online article?!
I'm not basing anything on the content of the article which I think is mostly another BBC joke, BUT I assume journalists could have done as much as write down the number - 93% German casualties on Soviet Front as quoted by Russian Historian Falin *correctly*. You un-der-stand what I'm trying to say here I hope?
No, you were being very inaccurate, even relative to your own worthless source. And if this is going to be another amazing display of stubbornness over sense, I'd rather we just drop it right now.
Your source is worthless, I was referring to percentage during the whole war, and generally I am already used to you quoting the LOWEST and LEAST FAVOURABLE numbers you dug up somewhere for the Russians for WHATEVER point you are continually trying to prove here, therefore I'm pretty sure that all of your sources are worthless and unreliable...

PEACE...

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

Post by Qvist » 09 May 2005 09:03

Your source is worthless, I was referring to percentage during the whole war, and generally I am already used to you quoting the LOWEST and LEAST FAVOURABLE numbers you dug up somewhere for the Russians for WHATEVER point you are continually trying to prove here, therefore I'm pretty sure that all of your sources are worthless and unreliable...
Yes, you would be, wouldn't you. This is I believe the third time I have experienced a discussion involving you completely breaking down because you not only refuse to countenance any data provided by anyone else but are also concvinced that they are motivated by malice. I would have thought you had learned something from last time, when you made a complete arse of yourself by attempting to lecture someone who has spent decades researching WWII on a professional basis on the basics according to Shirer, even after you knew who you were talking to, but evidently this is not so, and you remain blissfully convinced that you alone, with your handful of general works, hold the keys to insight. People provide you with material directly out of their own research that you wouldn't neccessarily get from a lifetime of reading, and the only way you can respond is to insult them because the isn't mentioned by Overy and even presume to lecture them, it's not even pathetic. How do you expect anyone to discuss anything with you,or take you seriously, under such circumstances?

And "PEACE"!? After that diatribe?

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Post by Victor » 09 May 2005 10:32

I see there is no intention of a less aggressive attitude in this thread. It will be closed.

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”