|
Posts:
6,909
Registered:
8/16/00
|
|
(1 of 49)
Who had "more men to spare": USSR or german coalition?
Oct 30, 2009 11:16 AM
|
Since my original post was removed (for no reason) let start it again:
By the 1942 German coalition (those countries which fought USSR) had a total poppulation of at least 160 million.
Soviets had control over 120 million (or less). In other words German coalition had a population 40 million larger than USSR at that time.
Obviously you would expect that country with large population should have a larger army (In other words you would expect China to have a larger army than Salvador does) unless something prevents it.
So, despite all the fake claims you may find in the literature (particularly in western pseudo-historical literature) German coalition had numerical superiority over Red Army.
|
|
|
Posts:
6,921
From:
Billings MT.
Registered:
2/11/03
|
|
(2 of 49)
Re: Who had "more men to spare": USSR or german coalition?
Oct 30, 2009 11:54 AM
|
no, you are incorrect again. Those persons in the USSR who were "miilitary" available far out numbered those of the Axis allies.
Those whom Germany could "call upon" were not the entire population of those nations, and not even portions of those nations. Numbers used in this fashion are false, mis-leading, and distortionary.
You aren't going to make Stalin a "winner" in any fashion, no matter your attempts to shift the argument and obuscate the basic premis. Stalin wan't a "strategic genius". He didn't have a "smaller population" upon which to draw, and he also was a dolt in military use. Only when he realized that did he become a "winner".
Until then he had killed, or imprisoned all of those whom he would need after "Barbarrosa", it wasn't until those failures in late 1941 that he was smart enough to recognize that his "staying out" was to his advantage. Politiacly and militarialy. Let us just recognize that you "Sir" are attempting to rehabilitate the second most nasty human being in the first half of the twentieth century.
The only reason he falls behind Hitler, is that he didn't kill because of "race" (with few exceptions), he killed because of suspicion of danger to himself and his policies. Hitler killed on an industrial scale, Stalin killed on a much less "compressed " timeline
--
Happy Trails,
Clint
|
|
|
Posts:
1,318
Registered:
10/7/04
|
|
(3 of 49)
Re: Who had "more men to spare": USSR or german coalition?
Oct 30, 2009 12:00 PM
|
German coalition had numerical superiority on the Eastern front over Red Army.
So now you compare the ENTIRE Axis population with the Red ARMY!
Clearly you are beyond the pale.
--
Shovel claims:
"British bombers could have a little as one man (mosquito)"
Bucky claims that the Tempest was a Bomber !
|
|
|
Posts:
2,606
Registered:
7/24/06
|
|
(4 of 49)
Re: Who had "more men to spare": USSR or german coalition?
Oct 30, 2009 2:29 PM
|
|
At its highest point at the beginning the Wehrmacht had just over 3 million men As of april 1942 the German had 1.4 million men ready for combat not including sick and wounded.As of November the Germans had 700k men Kia so estimated in April would be at least 1 million Kia In comparrison the Soviets had a total of 5 million men including sick and wounded so the Soviets had close to a 2 to one man power advantage. You are failing to conduct the proper research and ignoring those numbers that you dont like. Summer 1942 Romania provided 27 divisions, Hungary 13, Italy 9 Slovak 2. THese troops were not capable of standing up to SOviets so to act like their numbers were important is absurd
|
|
|
Posts:
3,450
Registered:
11/16/04
|
|
(5 of 49)
Re: Who had "more men to spare": USSR or german coalition?
Oct 30, 2009 4:53 PM
|
Geneh obvuiously wants to once again play the game of comparing the Soviet military to the Axis military it faced but then run away from that comparison by instead comparing the populations of the countries themselves. He wants to ignore the whole host of reasons why the "total population" numbers will tell us little. The USSR put women in its military, who else did? The USSR drew on all its population while many of Germany's allies did not. Essentially this is a dance to avoid the comparison of the Red Army to the Axis coalition because he knows these figures, no matter who compiles them, show the Red Army with superior numbers.
Here's an interesting quote I ran into today:
"The economic and military potential of the greater part of the globe was united against Germany and Germany's feeble allies." General Guderian, some time shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war upon the US by Germany, is seeing how horribly outmatched and outnumbered Germany is. This is 1941, of course.
Give it up Geneh, there is no way to make this arguement intelligently.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,126
Registered:
10/23/00
|
|
(6 of 49)
Nov 1, 2009 7:53 PM
|
> By the 1942 German coalition (those countries which
> fought USSR) had a total poppulation of at least 160
> million.
How about tallying that up for us, so we know you have the right figures, and to see how you came up with it.
> Soviets had control over 120 million (or less).
"Control over" - I see a nice semantic here. Because so much of the Western USSR was conquered in 1941, those people don't "count" - yet men of military age were either (largely) drafted or evacuated east, so it's worth at least noting this.
> other words German coalition had a population 40
> million larger than USSR at that time.
If your data is correct, this is not the irrelevant point that your detractors on this thread seem to be arguing. Population base is an item of worth to measure and consider.
> So, despite all the fake claims you may find in the
> literature (particularly in western
> pseudo-historical literature) German coalition had
> numerical superiority on the Eastern front over Red
> Army.
This may be true, but you need to provide more than blanket numbers without substantiation.
I am also curious why you specifically choose sometime in 1942 to do the comparison? I mean, the war started in June 1941, so compare at that point seems more fair and balanced, or at the very least, compare at each point over multiple years, June 41, June 42, June 43.
tom
|
|
|
Posts:
821
From:
Aurora, CO
Registered:
12/14/99
|
|
(7 of 49)
Re: Not so fast, everyone
Nov 1, 2009 8:17 PM
|
In addition, make sure you add in all of the population the Soviets controlled from their occupied territories in 1941.
Poland, Baltic States, portions of Romania and Finland.
Then you will have a better set of numbers to show us.
|
|
|
Posts:
6,909
Registered:
8/16/00
|
|
(8 of 49)
Re: Not so fast, everyone
Nov 2, 2009 5:51 AM
|
Scout, all your points are legitimate and I will try to answer them:
How about tallying that up for us, so we know you have the right figures, and to see how you came up with it.
I already posted once, But here are the figures:
Population before the war:
USSR 180 mil
Germany 80 mil, Hungary 9 mil, Romania 18 mil, Finland 4 mil, Slovakia 5 mil, Italy 44 mil.
You can find these fig. in Enciclopedia Britannica of 1938-1940 or even on the net.
(There are small variations in different sources, i am going by Encyclopedia Britannnica)
For example:
http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html
or
http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-4901.html
Following the annexation of Austria in 1938 and the Sudetenland (part of Czechoslovakia) in 1939, German territory and population encompassed 586,126 square kilometers and 79.7 million people, according to the 1939 census.
give the same number as Britannica did, while:
http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/population/russia.htm
gives USSR population of 191 mil or 10 mil larger than Britannica.
The amount of people lived on German's occupied territory you can also find in the same sources:
http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/population/russia.htm
Ukraine 40 mil, Belorussia 5.6 mil, Moldavia 3.4 mil and so on.
While there are certain variations of data between different sources these variations are still smaller (in relative numbers) than variations on armed forces since the population data relies on OBJECTIVE statistics obtained from periodically conducted CENSUS. In other words it is more thrustworthy than any data you may found in pseudo historical books (whom you for some reason believe so much).
(If you go by one source:
http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/population/germany.htm
Germany 80 mil, Finland 3.6 mil, Romania 16 mil, Italy 44.5 mil, Hungary 9.3 mil, Slovakia 3.3 mil, Total: 156.7 or 3.3 mil less than Britannica. USRR 191 mil or 11 mil more than Britannica. So, according to this source German coalition had between 26 and 31 mil more than USSR by 1942)
Control over" - I see a nice semantic here. Because so much of the Western USSR was conquered in 1941, those people don't "count" - yet men of military age were either (largely) drafted or evacuated east, so it's worth at least noting this.
Well, yes and no. Indeed some were drafted in 1941 from the territory captured later by Germans but due to the enormous speed by which Germans moved in the first few months of the war there were not too many of them. On the other hand more than 4 mil Red Army soldiers were killed or captured by the end of 1941 and this amount definitely compensate all those who were drafted in 1941 from the territory Germans captured in the same year.
As to those who were "evacuated east' (by the government) they were all "essential employees" and since they were "essential employees" they were released from the draft.
However I included them anyway (you may look at my numbers) by adding 15-20 mil to the population which lived outside the territory occupied by Germans.
I am also curious why you specifically choose sometime in 1942 to do the comparison?
You are right. German coalition not always had numerical superiority over Red Army. Particularly in 1944 and 1945 when German allies, like Romania, Italy, Finland etc changed sides or got out from the conflict the Soviets gained definite numerical superiority. That is why I claim the exact year (1942) unlike western pseudo-historians who don't specify the time and therefore their claim of Soviet superiority extends to the entire conflict. That is how they brainwash their readers
Why 1942 in particular? Well, actually (to be more specific) I would take a little bit wider stretch of time: from, let say, November 1941 to May of 1943, from the beginning of the battle for Moscow to the beginning of the battle for Kursk. Why? Because this was the time when the outcome of the war was decided. It is not that important who had a numerical supriority at the end of the war since the war, by all accounts, was won earlier.
What I am saying (and let me repeat it) that at the time when the outcome of the war was decided (at exactly that time) German coalition had substantioal numerical supriority over USSR and still LOST it.
That is my main point.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,450
Registered:
11/16/04
|
|
(9 of 49)
Re: Not so fast, everyone
Nov 2, 2009 7:22 AM
|
What I am saying (and let me repeat it) that at the time when the outcome of the war was decided (at exactly that time) German coalition had substantioal numerical supriority over USSR and still LOST it.
That is my main point.
There is no point made. You've simply tried to "arrange" a way to give the Axis greater numbers than the USSR. You don't want to compare troop numbers to troop numbers or you simply ignore them because you know you can't make your arguement with them. A comparison of population numbers, which at this time ('42-'43) can't possibly be considered accurate, tells us very little toward what you want to assert it does. Population numbers do not indicate "men to spare" and until you show how they do you should surrender that you've made no point at all.
No one here with any knowledge of WWII would sensibly deny that the USSR fought the lion's share of the war in the ETO. No one would deny the horrible losses the USSR suffered in WWII, but an assertion that Stalinwas a highly rated strategist, especially with this as proof, is senseless.
|
|
|
Posts:
6,909
Registered:
8/16/00
|
|
(10 of 49)
Re: Not so fast, everyone
Nov 2, 2009 9:18 AM
|
You don't want to compare troop numbers to troop numbers or you simply ignore them because you know you can't make your arguement with them.
No, because I don't trust them. And I wonder: why do you trust them? Where did they come from? Who made them up?
Population? That comes from the census. Regular statistics. You may argue that census is not a very accurate way to determine the quantity of population but it is mutiple times more accurate than your numbers which most likely fell down from the sky on someone's silly head.
Why do you trust them?
Even if, let say, German coalition numbers are correct in some of the books (EVEN!) how do you know that Russian correct also? How do you know how many troops of the Red Army opposed german coalition on the Eastern front? Do you trust Soviet historians or German, who had no access to Soviet files? (Which by themselves are not accurate).
Nonsense. The only numbers you can believe that preesnted with a certain degree of accuracy are the numbers given by the census.
Population numbers do not indicate "men to spare"
No? Why not?
but an assertion that Stalinwas a highly rated strategist, especially with this as proof, is senseless.
OK, here we come. Yes. If I am correct and indeed German coalition had a superior numbers of men (more men to spare) when it lost all the main battles and the war in general then the big QUESTION comes: if not by the numbers Red Army won the war then how? And the answer scares you and other westerners because it contradicts something you have been led to believe by western pseudo-histirian propagandists.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,606
Registered:
7/24/06
|
|
(11 of 49)
Re: Not so fast, everyone
Nov 2, 2009 9:48 AM
|
|
they are from the Russian archives. If you count the Gemran allies how come you dont count the west also. German records show that they initially counted 150 divisions at the start of Barbarossa, as of September tehy counted another 300 that they were not aware of. The most hialious part is your insisting that the German allies were worth counting. Only the Finns were worth. THe others fell apart when faced with a determined SOviet attack.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,450
Registered:
11/16/04
|
|
(12 of 49)
Re: Not so fast, everyone
Nov 2, 2009 11:38 AM
|
> You don't want to compare troop numbers to troop
> numbers or you simply ignore them because you know
> you can't make your arguement with them.
>
> No, because I don't trust them. And I wonder: why do
> you trust them? Where did they come from? Who made
> them up?
They aren't made up and I've given the name of where I get the numbers from. There are some people who make a living at getting these things right, they have to if we are goingto have an idea of how to fight Russia if we ever do. I think you don't trust the numbers because they don't support your arguement.
> Population? That comes from the census. Regular
> statistics.
You are saying that all these eastern European countries had accurate census taking in 1940? That's what you base this arguement on? The USSR was a mere 23 years old...you really think they knew how many people they had in that expanse?
You may argue that census is not a very
> accurate way to determine the quantity of population
> but it is mutiple times more accurate than your
> numbers which most likely fell down from the sky on
> someone's silly head.
It has been argued here many times that you can't extrapolate a military size from a population for a whole host of reasons. Many countries may not draft. Many may not be able to support an army beyond a few hundred thousand men, if that. Some may field antiquated armies using little or no armor or obsolete or inferior armor. They may have no air force to speak of. They may not have sustained the male population of other countries for any number of reasons. Check your statisitics, not all countries have the same population distribution in terms of gender and age. Then again when fielding an army most countries step up the record keeping and one can expect numbers to be more accurate. Your guess based on population is just that...a guess.
Do you trust Soviet historians or
> German, who had no access to Soviet files? (Which by
> themselves are not accurate).
There is no reason to make the blanket assumption that Soviet records are inaccurate. When the wall came down a large awakening about the war occured and in the years since we've learned more and more as historians gained access to records that the USSR did not want the west to know about.
> Nonsense. The only numbers you can believe that
> preesnted with a certain degree of accuracy are the
> numbers given by the census.
You would need to provide some proof that these numbers are accurate and I would also want to see you find one person with some expertise in the area of population studies that is willing to make the same assumptions that youfeel comfortable making. I've never seen any such claim in my reading of WWII history.
>
> Population numbers do not indicate "men to
> spare"
>
> No? Why not?
Show me where all countries in 1940 that are a part of this discussion shared the same distribution of men of service age. Show me where all the countries had the means to draft all these men and arm, feed, and clothe them. Show me that their armies had equipment that was not obsolete, or substantial in numbers as to have effect.
>
> but an assertion that Stalinwas a highly rated
> strategist, especially with this as proof, is
> senseless.
>
> OK, here we come. Yes. If I am correct and indeed
> German coalition had a superior numbers of men (more
> men to spare) when it lost all the main battles and
> the war in general then the big QUESTION comes: if
> not by the numbers Red Army won the war then how? And
> the answer scares you and other westerners because it
> contradicts something you have been led to believe by
> western pseudo-histirian propagandists.
I can only guess that you are now refering to the arguement that the Soviets only won with numbers. Do some research, look at the opinions offered on this thread and others before you are willing to jump to conclusions. I myself have started threads on superior Soviet strategy on the battlefield, I've posted about Tukachevsky and deep battle and I'm sure others have done the same.
Your willingness to make assumptions with little or no concrete information is making you look a little silly. I have said before that I have not seen people post here that Soviets were inept or that their only winning methods were numbers.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,126
Registered:
10/23/00
|
|
(13 of 49)
Nov 2, 2009 8:26 PM
|
> Scout, all your points are legitimate and I will try
> to answer them:
>
> How about tallying that up for us, so we know you
> have the right figures, and to see how you came up
> with it.
>
> I already posted once, But here are the figures:
> Population before the war:
> USSR 180 mil
> Germany 80 mil, Hungary 9 mil, Romania 18 mil,
> Finland 4 mil, Slovakia 5 mil, Italy 44 mil.
Problem is, if you are going to count Italy (44M) into the equation, then you have to add the entire population of the western allies (e.g., British Empire, at minimum).
Italy was never focused on the Eastern Front, and did not even participate in the initial invasion. They were caught unawares - unconsulted - and hurriedly gathered forces to deploy east. I believe it wasn't until the 2nd summer campaign that they fielded an Army (Italian 8th), which was wiped out in aftermath of Stalingrad. One army, while notable, hardly justifies including 40+M Italians in the population tally.
Using your very own argumentation, then a Briton would be well in his right to choose Sept 1940 and compare the Axis coalition against Britain, and include the production capacity of most of Europe on the Axis side - while leaving the USSR on the sidelines in the discussion.
t
|
|
|
Posts:
4,126
Registered:
10/23/00
|
|
(14 of 49)
Nov 2, 2009 8:41 PM
|
My own, drawn primarily from "WW2 Nation by Nation"
Greater Germany ~77M
Hungary ~8M
Romania (before 1940 dismemberments) was ~17M
[Note that most of those losses in population would be under Hungarian control (Transylvania), and thus part of Axis still, or would quickly be conquered in Barbarossa).]
Finland ~4M (though of course they were of limited "value" due to their limited participation as co-belligerent)
Plus one could also include Croatia, though that minor puppet state was no more than ~3M
Slovakia perhaps ~3M (it lost territory, too).
So we're looking at roughly 110M, plus the disjoined access to the production of many tens of millions more in France, Greece, Norway, Poland, and even the occupied western USSR.
To include Italy is grossly deceptive, IMO, but I'll round up to 120M to account for their participation (Romania provided much more firepower than Italy).
So from my viewpoint, the disparity is not so great, esp. when one considers that Germany was still fighting the UK and shortly after Barbarossa, had to begin worrying about the US.
tom
|
|
|
Posts:
4,126
Registered:
10/23/00
|
|
(15 of 49)
Nov 2, 2009 8:52 PM
|
> The most hialious part is your insisting that the
> German allies were worth counting. Only the Finns
> were worth. THe others fell apart when faced with a
> determined SOviet attack.
Well, then would you accept him posting that many soviet troops were equally worthless? After all the Kazakh, Uiger, Turkmen and Azeris troops who were not only not Russian, but didn't understand Russian, could hardly be seen as equivalent to German panzer troops, could they?
Still, German allies were what they were. Slovakia sent two "mobile" divisions (small divisions) totaling something like 20,000 men, so her 2 or 3 M population supported 20K troops in the east... wow.
Hungary flat out WITHDREW her forces the first winter, returned in the spring, and after Stalingrad debacle, again withdrew his forces. Some ally!
Finland was a co-belligerent and refused to advance beyond roughly her 1939 border.
Only Romania fought it out, until she was overrun by the Red Army in 1944.
tom
|
|
|
|
|
