War Crimes

Discussion in 'General' started by pol o frithil, Dec 8, 2004.

?

were the allies right to stop fighting when they defeated germany and not drive stalin out of easter

  1. yes they were right to stop fighting.

    91.3%
  2. no they should have driven stalin home.

    4.3%
  3. no comme

    4.3%
  1. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    Originally posted by morse1001+Jun 20 2005, 12:54 PM-->(morse1001 @ Jun 20 2005, 12:54 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Kiwiwriter@Jun 20 2005, 04:38 PM

    but he still had massive sympathy for 20 million dead

    [post=35545]Quoted post[/post]


    The first time that figure appeared anywhere was in a interview Stalin gave to PRAVDA in May 1946 and even then, he is quoted as saying it was six million dead and fourteen million casualties
    [post=35546]Quoted post[/post]
    [/b]

    Volume 6, No. 16 of the IWM/Purnell's History of World War II indicates the Soviets sufered 13.6 million military dead and 7.7 million civilian dead.

    That was published in 1967, so there have probably been changes in the tally since then, but it's still a gigantic pool of blood.
     
  2. Friedrich H

    Friedrich H Senior Member

    Glantz's figures (the most accurate, on my view) are:

    Total Armed Forces Losses, June 1941- May 1945:

    Killed in battle or died during evacuation: 5.187.190
    Mortally wounded (and died later): 1.100.327
    Died of illness (non-battle): 541.920
    Missing in action or captured: 4.455.620
    Non-mortal wounds: 15.205.592
    Non-mortal illness and frostbite: 3.138.556

    Total Armed Forces Casualties: 29.629.205

    That would be 6.200.000 military dead and almost 22 million civilians killed.
     
  3. hunter07

    hunter07 Junior Member

    Originally posted by Kiwiwriter@Jun 20 2005, 04:38 PM

    There was no way the Allies were going to go to war with the Soviets in 1945, using German troops. As I've said earlier, it would have made their entire wartime cause dishonorable.

    [post=35545]Quoted post[/post]



    History shows that there is plenty examples of honor on the battle filed. However, there is very little honor in politics. In my opinion, politically, both FDR and Churchill would have loved to get rid of Stalin and eliminate Soviet Army. militarilly, it would have been a tough nut to crack. I am Russian and I don't want to speculate who would have won if the West decided to invade Russia. Soviet human supply was near exhaustion but Soviet Army of 1945 was extremely well armed and very well trained. I am glad that the West decided not to invade Soviet Union otherwise most of us would not be here today.
    Also, I've noticed that some of you view the occupation of Poland by Soviet forces as a great crime. I am not going to argue that FDR and Churchill are partially to blame for that because they allowed Stalin to do that. Stalin would have done it anyway. After the WWII Stalin, all the generals and whoever else was in charge at the time realized that "WWII" can never again. We "Soviet Union" lost over 30 million people. The best and the brightest of that generation were gone. For the sake of the survival of the country we could not afford another war like that. That is way the nuclear build up happen and that is way Soviet Union decided to turn near by states including Poland into a buffer zone. Was wrong for them to do? Possibly. However, they thought that it was necessary to protect the Soviet Union. Any other country under same circumstances would have done the same.
     
  4. Friedrich H

    Friedrich H Senior Member

    Also, I've noticed that some of you view the occupation of Poland by Soviet forces as a great crime. I am not going to argue that FDR and Churchill are partially to blame for that because they allowed Stalin to do that. Stalin would have done it anyway.

    Yes. Why? Because the Poles were traditional arch enemies of the Russians, Bielorrussians and Ukrainians, and of the USSR (remember 1920?)… :rolleyes:
     
  5. sappernz

    sappernz Member

    There were always doubts about Pattons mental state of mind, or lack of it, from his early days.
     

Share This Page