WWII. A new slant and some stats

Norman Davies in his new book "No simple Victory' has some very interesting statisticss regarding WWII.

He shows that our 'westernised' history is very slanted..... as is the Soviet's in another quite separate way.

Breaking active deployments into a measure of 'Man-Months' he quotes the the following periods of time spent in certain campaigns.... and it is startling:

German-Soviet War 1941-5 :::::::::::::::: 406 million
North Africa 1941-3::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 5 million
Western Front 1944-May 45:::: 16.5 million
German Western Offensive: May-June 1940:: 9 million
Finland V Russia 1939-40 ::::::::::: 9 million


Perhaps better known, but worth repeating
Military dead (estimated) 1939-45

Russia 11,000,000
Germany 3,500,000
Romania 519,000
Yugoslavia 300,000
Italy 226,000
UK 144,000
USA 136,000
France 92,000
Finland 90,000
Australia 30-40,000??? (not quoted)

Deaths in individual battles:

Barbarossa: 1,582,000
Stalingrad: 973,000
Leningrad: 900,000
Kiev: 657,000
Berlin: 325,000
French Campaign:250,000
Overlord: 185,000
El Alamein II: 4,650


He states that each western (and Soviet) nation never provides the true perspective, perpetuating myths that become 'facts' in time. (and of course the Japanese are perhaps the worst here)

British forces accounted for around 5-10% or German casualties, US for around 15%, with the western land warfare in reality a side show (though not the western war at sea and in the air where the US and British achieved similar performances to those of the Soviets on land). Yet our focus has been and remains on the war in the west


Makes you think.... I hope.

And it brings into perspective our modern capacity and softness when it comes to war.
The US have suffered 3000 casualties in Iraq and it is a major drama.

If we suffered one casualty, the left wingers would have us morally bankrupt.

Facts are facts.

There is a need for the soft underbelly of our nation and others to understand that we must be prepared to suffer a cost in defense, including some casualties if we wish to maintain our current life style and slowly generate a better world.

We need to do our bit. We don't want another WWII


Regards
Greg

I'm sorry Greg but I disagree with your method of argument.

You titled the thread WWII a new slant and some stats.

You then went on to give your personal opinion on the war in Iraq calling anyone who disagrees with your opinion and others "soft underbellies".

What has the current war in Iraq got to do with a book on WWII? Do you think name calling of people who don't share your opinion strengthens your argument?

I listen with an open mind to views and arguments based on facts, logical arguments etc not to those who resort to name calling of their opponents.

You are entitled to your opinions like everyone else but please don't ruin your argument with gutter tactics - those tactics only appeal to fools who are incapable of forming an opinion based on sound arguments.

How would you feel if I suggested that those who supported the war in Iraq were braindead red necks? Would that help change your mind? Hopefully you would reply to me in the same way that I have replied to you.

l think the U/S broke the law when they went into Iraq the 2nd time ,there were no W,O,M,D they should have left and said sorry
The UN didn't want to back it ,,,,it stunk from word go

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Ward

Makes you think.... I hope.

And it brings into perspective our modern capacity and softness when it comes to war.
The US have suffered 3000 casualties in Iraq and it is a major drama.

If we suffered one casualty, the left wingers would have us morally bankrupt.

Facts are facts.

There is a need for the soft underbelly of our nation and others to understand that we must be prepared to suffer a cost in defense, including some casualties if we wish to maintain our current life style and slowly generate a better world.

We need to do our bit. We don't want another WWII


Regards
Greg

---

The trouble with this statement is it could come equally from Adolf Hitler or Churchill or DFR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Ward

If we suffered one casualty, the left wingers would have us morally bankrupt.

Facts are facts.

There is a need for the soft underbelly of our nation and others to understand that we must be prepared to suffer a cost in defense, including some casualties if we wish to maintain our current life style and slowly generate a better world.

We need to do our bit. We don't want another WWII


Regards
Greg

---

makes me think if you you realy think it is ok to make somebody's home into a war zone and inforce your oun standeds on somebody else so we can maintain our current standed of liveing which is much higher than most in the world anyway.Generateing a better world should be on your war banner

The stats dont add up. They must only be for the western front in which case the Australian figure is wrong. Australia sufferred 39,400 military deaths or .57% of the population. The US 416,800 or .32% of population and the UK 382,600 or .94%. Yugoslavia sufferred 446,000 or 6.69% of population!

Of interest is that the casualty rate in the Normandy campaign was actually higher than the Somme. The Somme seems particularly bad because of the numbers involved which were quite large by Western standards.

I'm quoting stats from his book which is of recent vintage and I haven't cross referenced them.

Draw any conclusions you like about morality, I'm no moralist, I just hate to think how our soft nation would cope if there was a serious crisis.

The point he is making is that our historical perceptions can be based on the small picture; all I'm saying is that we may suffer from a misplaced sense of proportion.

Greg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Ward

The point he is making is that our historical perceptions can be based on the small picture; all I'm saying is that we may suffer from a misplaced sense of proportion.

Greg

---

You might enjoy Mud, Blood and Poppycock by Gordon Corrigan published by Cassell. Takles the Myths and perceptions of WW1 on the Western Front.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Ward

I'm quoting stats from his book which is of recent vintage and I haven't cross referenced them.

Greg

---

Trouble with statistics are that they are usually twisted and biased in favour of the author's own bias.

Obviously the German/Russian war will have more manhours and death than any other part of WW2.

The actual fighting was much longer than any of the other campaigns resulting in more manhours committed.

The numbers of death was also staggering. In part because of Hitler's orders of no retreat so that many of the german solders were sacrificed. In addition remember the number of Russian soldiers executed by the German as they were considered sub human by the Nazies after their surrender, as well as the Russian soldiers executed by their own secret police for their crime of withdrawing instead of fighting to the death.

So I think the author is suffering of misplaced sense of proportion.


Peter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

Trouble with statistics are that they are usually twisted and biased in favour of the author's own bias.Peter.

---

Have to agree with that statement, I am always wary of stats.

There is also an interesting book, not sure of the author, published around 1990 titled: 'Military Incompetence'. A good read on warfare with special attention on the morass that was the trench warfare on WI
The title says it all....


Regarding the author's 'stats', obviously he is making a point and using whatever assists his argument, nevertheless, our western focus on 'our' western war (although not by those with a genuine interest) has neglected to some degree the intensity and proportion of warfare in the east.

He also makes the point that during the recent 60 year 'celebrations', that UK, USA and Russia to a great extent only really recognised the contributions made by their own forces, UK for example had few if any of the Commonwealth countries especially India, Austrlalia etc. attend.
I guess this is a natural phenomena.

Anyway, WWII was a major event in the history of this nation and the occasional reflection and update on the 'real' history is no bad thing.

Regards
Greg

Greg,

Your comparison on hardness is lost on me. The European campaign in WW2 was the result of an aggressive Germany moving across its borders into its neighbours in a brutal assult resulting in massive dislocation and death. Iraq is a campaign in which no concrete idea has ever been floated that Iraq was going to pounce on any of its neighbours, in fact its previous attempts at doing so had failed in Iran and later Kuwait. Ultimately we went in for reasons that did not exist, and that was WOMD that had already been destroyed. Iraq is an example of the West attacking on incorrect intelligence, to solve a problem that no longer existed. WW2 was appeasement of an agressor until he got out of control and then the Western powers finally having their hands forced. You can make the comparisson with Iraq's expulsion from Kuwait, but the current phase is just an example of more powerful nations invading on a falsehood and creating enormous damage. The later is an example of hard bellied failure, a triumph of blind stupidity over truth, of hawks wanting to believe their own prejudices over reality. The Kuwait example is a good one as it resulted in the nuetering of Iraq as a regional aggressor, the later invasion of Iraq was a failure of policy not a success as they failed to realise they had already acheived their aim.

We appeased Sadam for a long time before he got to hot to handle, and there are many examples around the world where western meddling has got it very wrong at great cost. We do need to learn, but your example is wrong headed, it has to be through the UN and the world has to stop pandering to thugs, war lords and dictators, and start thinking a bit more about social justice for all. Russia lost 20 to 30 million in WW2 (no one really knows) when you add in civilian deaths, and that was on top of the deaths incurred under Stalinist policy and purges during the 1930's when millions died also. Whats the answer?, I don't know, but sabre rattling is the end result of failure to preserve peace, it's for when there is no other possibility, we need to concentrate on prevention not pretending that miliary intervention is some form of positive when all it represents is failure to acheive anything else beforehand.

The statistics of death mean nothing. We have not had two super powers seriously match off against each other since the 1940's, recent experiences have meant the superiority of one side has quickly crushed the other. However if we ever face a situation were both sides are more evenly matched then death rates similar to WW2 are very possible. Don't assume the reaction of the public, we can accept loss when we believe in the cause, not when we fail to see why we are there in the first place.

When I first started reading your post, Greg, I thought you were running a left wing argument, so I was disappointed that you swung against us.:U

So, your argument is that because so many people were killed in previous wars we should not bemoan the few deaths that are happening in places like Iraq, and we need to accept that these fewer deaths are necessary for the prevention of further larges-scale tragedies? How do you work that out?

I have to agree with the others who have responded and say that stats can be manipulated to argue just about anything.

Sorry I can't make a left wing argument. I can understand one, but struggle to relate.

I was bought up to work hard on a dairy farm and have observed too much union feather bedding in my career to accept any ideology that caters to the lazy and slack in our society. Unionists do themselves a great disservice, eventually slackness leads to privitization for better or worse.... Whatever happened to the DMR in NSW and dare I mention Telstra?

Yes I am in favour of a 12 months national service for all 18 year-olds, but that has nothing to do with this thread.

Besides I like to stimulate enthusiastic debate, (even if some of the drivel I write is only there for effect......)

Groggy, I agree with you on the military, well trained and great men and ladies.

Would we respond in a crisis?
Unfortunately, I feel many would not.

The only ones with gun experience now seem be the criminals.... but then again future wars will be run by computer, so maybe you're right.


Regarding the correctness or other of Iraq, military incompetence again has a lot to answer for and the arguments are all out there. It was all handled badly from the start, but that's another separate discussion

The new Govt. is wrong in differentiating between Iraq and Afghanistan.
Whether we like it or not, those nations now (along with Pakistan) are part of a big mess that won't be resolved by our 'token' withdrawal. This may make some of the left feel great about the new Govt; but we were only there in a token fashion in any event.

I've come to the conclusion that it's about oil and it will take a lot of corn and biofuel to fill those 'Caddies.


Greg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Ward

Sorry I can't make a left wing argument. I can understand one, but struggle to relate.

I was bought up to work hard on a dairy farm and have observed too much union feather bedding in my career to accept any ideology that caters to the lazy and slack in our society. Unionists do themselves a great disservice, eventually slackness leads to privitization for better or worse.... Whatever happened to the DMR in NSW and dare I mention Telstra?

Yes I am in favour of a 12 months national service for all 18 year-olds, but that has nothing to do with this thread.

Besides I like to stimulate enthusiastic debate, (even if some of the drivel I write is only there for effect......)

Groggy, I agree with you on the military, well trained and great men and ladies.

Would we respond in a crisis?
Unfortunately, I feel many would not.

The only ones with gun experience now seem be the criminals.... but then again future wars will be run by computer, so maybe you're right.


Regarding the correctness or other of Iraq, military incompetence again has a lot to answer for and the arguments are all out there. It was all handled badly from the start, but that's another separate discussion

The new Govt. is wrong in differentiating between Iraq and Afghanistan.
Whether we like it or not, those nations now (along with Pakistan) are part of a big mess that won't be resolved by our 'token' withdrawal. This may make some of the left feel great about the new Govt; but we were only there in a token fashion in any event.

I've come to the conclusion that it's about oil and it will take a lot of corn and biofuel to fill those 'Caddies.


Greg

---

Fair enough.:2tsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Ward

I've come to the conclusion that it's about oil and it will take a lot of corn and biofuel to fill those 'Caddies.


Greg

---

Time will tell ,l think it has more to do about keeping the middle east destablived so when the oil crash comes or GW hit this area first there will be no large milatary force to lash out with,, the plan is it will fold in on itself with a lot of smaller wars that can't tough the westen world

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Ward

There is also an interesting book, not sure of the author, published around 1990 titled: 'Military Incompetence'. A good read on warfare with special attention on the morass that was the trench warfare on WI
Greg

---

Phsycology of Military Incompetence by Dixon. His analysis of WW1 is biased by the perceptions of what happened rather than what actually happened and the conditions and options which available at the time.