Population disparity between USSR and Germany

Do you have some proofs for this revisionist statement .

 

In terms of the number of Stalin's victims, I would suggest everyone read the book "Atrocities" by Matthew White. It came out a few years ago. He writes detailed chapters on the 100 deadliest wars, genocides, and mass murders in human history. He also goes into very good detail at how he arrived at various numbers and the debates behind many calculations, and also discusses whether someone died as result of deliberate human act or incidental event (for example, the issue of how many Native Americans died of smallpox vs. how many died from the European conquests, and to what extent the smallpox epidemics can be blamed on deliberate acts of the Europeans). He admits that his numbers are estimates, and acknowledges uncertainties with some of his calculations.

FYI, he ranked WWII as the deadliest event in history (obviously), with the casualties from the Holocaust and Sino-Japanese War included in total, which he estimated to be 76 million. As for Stalin and Hitler, he had a sub-chapter devoted to who was the deadliest individual ever as far as genocides. If we include wars, then Hitler is number one, but if we include famines, then Mao surges ahead. But by a narrow definition of deliberately killing innocent people outside the field of battle, then Hitler was #1 with 15.5 million deaths, Stalin close behind with 13 million, then Mao at #3 with 10 million, and a handful of other dictators rounding out the list (White makes a disclaimer that this particular list is merely based on individuals for whom we have reliable numbers, so many ancient warlords were not mentioned in this sub-chapter).

 

I can find a few books that made this point, but believe me, I hardly intended my statement as an insult against my own countrymen. The general point of my statement is that Germany had for a long time traditionally maintained a large, peacetime military while the U.S. rapidly demobilized its military after the Civil War and WWI. So Germany, in 1941, probably had troops that were, on average, better trained than a typical Allied soldier, who was likely new to the army.

Now, obviously since WWII, the U.S. has maintained a large standing military and probably does right now have the best trained and most professional military in the world. But in 1941, the U.S. was not a country that typically kept a large military on standby, whereas Germany, France, Japan, and Russia were (not that it helped with France...).

 

In 1941, the US armed forces were some 1.7 million men strong.

The large peacetime army of Germany existed since .. 1935 only : the strength of the Reichswehr was only 100000 men .

The following is from Frieser (the Blitzkrieg Legend) :classification og the German divisions in may 1940 :

Toal : 157

10 PZD
6 Mot D
61 ID fit for attack and defense
29 ID partially fit for defense and attack
28 ID for defense only
9 ID partially for defense only

Subtotal : 143
+
9 security divisions and 5 divisions which were still training .

Only 77 of the 157 divisions could be used for all missions ..

I will give later a classification of the divisions in june 1941.

 

A big one when comparing the Far East to Eastern Europe was unity of the larger power. China was rather fractured while the USSR was clearly not.

With respect to the Japanese I don't think that's really sustainable. Japan did well early on when they were fighting unprepaired or inferior opponents. The Alllies in the Pacific pretty clearly out fought them after the first few months though. Only their unwillingness to surrender resulted in such bloody battles. With German soldiers it was a bit different. Early on Germany had a huge doctrinal edge and they also had a replacement system that tended to integrate the replacements into their units quicker and more efficiently. Even there by late war I suspect it would come down to exactly how you defined "effective" and "professional".

 

That's an interesting and valid comparison, and I would certainly be interested in seeing the later classifications you mentioned as well. Obviously, all the major combatants were prepared in some ways but not in others. Just so we're clear-I'm not in any way contending that the German soldiers were braver or more dedicated than their American counter-parts. I was merely recanting an observation that I had read in various history books, that Germany had a very proficient and well-trained army. You are correct in that Germany was limited by the Versailles Treaty to a 100,000 man military and they didn't openly violate the treaty until 1935. But Germany had a number of unofficial, para-military organizations in existence prior to 1935 and, like the other major powers of Europe during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Germany and/or the German Federation maintained a large peacetime military and were on constant preparedness. In other words, German culture in 1941 was more war-like than the U.S. was at the time. Obviously, given the mobilization of all the major players involved in the war, many if not most soldiers on both sides had never seen battle prior to WWII, and as lwd posted above, it all depends on how one defines "effective" and "professional." But I was merely suggesting that the German military was very organized and efficient, and in some ways more so than the Allies. This should not be considered an insult, because the efficiency of the German military can be largely explained by their brutality, which in 1941 at least was certainly greater than the U.S. or U.K.

 

That's a good point about Japan and probably true. After their initial successes in 1942, Japan never won a major battle against the U.S., even though the U.S. was devoting more resources to war against Germany. I should point out that the U.S. did maintain a fairly large peacetime navy after Theodore Roosevelt's administration, so the Navy and Marines were probably a bit more prepared for war than the Army.

But thank you for saying what I was trying to say, that early in the war Germany had a large doctrinal edge over the Allies and had an efficient replacement system. I do not in any way suggest that the U.S. never caught up to them, or that German soldiers were braver or more valiant than U.S. soldiers.

 

And another additional point, I do know that in WWII, the U.S. soldiers were the best paid, best fed, and best equipped soldiers in the world (something FDR, George Marshall, et al. should get more credit for). So I was not bashing the U.S. at all, just merely mentioning that Germany was in some ways more prepared for war than other combatants.

 

I would have to disagree. You're comparing apples and oranges. Japan's early successes were as much due to the proficiency of their military forces as to any unpreparedness of their opponents. Many of their later defeats were not the result of deteriorating quality in the individual soldiers military proficiency, but the result of overexpansion by their countries leaders and an inability to support their far flung forces. Starvation, disease (caused by lack of supply) and a lack of adequate supply were our greatest weapons against Japan. It killed or eroded the fighting ability of most of Japan's ground and air forces. Precisely why we adopted the strategies we did in making war on them.

 

About 1941,the following is a classification given in "Germany and WWII Tome V,PP 986/987" (it should be available on the net) of the 208 German divisions/division equivalents .

The classification is given in descending line



1)20 PzD + 1 Light Division

2)10 Mot D, 4 SS Divisions + 1 Mountain Division

3) 1 Cavalry Division + 3 Mountain Divisions

4) 26 ID (from the first Wave)

5)16 ID (2nd Wave) + 14 ID (14th Wave)

6) 14 ID (7 th Wave) + 10 ID (8th Wave)



7) 10 ID (11 th Wave) + 10 ID (12 th Wave)

8) 5 ID (5th Wave) + 1 SS Police Division

9)15 ID (3th Wave) + 4 ID (6th Wave)



10)9 ID (13 th Wave) + 8 ID (14 th Wave)

11)15 ID (15th Wave) + 9 security divisions


My comments :

1/6 : 120 divisions who were fit for a big war ,but,at least 4 of these were not available on 21 june for Barbarossa (2 were in NA,and 2 PzD were in Germany for refitting)

7/9 : 45 divisions :these were only partially ready for Barbarossa: there was little training,shortages of NCO's,of equipment,...:the value of the SS Police division was more than questionable

10/11 ::these divisions were totally unfit for Barbarossa:the divisions of the 13,14 and 15 Wave were only good for occupation duties,the same for the security divisions which were used in the East .
92 divisions were equipped with mainly captured trucks (French)

The 4 SS divisions :the LSS had only the strength of a reinforced brigade,and the division Nord was an ad hoc formation .

The Gemans attacked the SU with 115 divisions from the groups 1/9 ,later reinforced by 26 divisions also from groups 1/9.This source was small,very small,and fit only for a short campaign .

 

I think we are looking at things from different angles. However when Japan ran up against determined opposition even early on they had serious problems. The initial defeat at Wake for instance and coming very close to loosing the rematch. As far as the British were concerned they were to a large extent playing against the "second team". As individual soldiers the Japanese were certainly hardy and determined my impression is that they were somewhat over specialized and/or not as well trained in general as the allies though. The IJN has a rather classic example of this that hurt them badly at times. Damage control was considered a specialized job and the IJN trained sailors specifically for that role in the USN all sailors were taught damage control. The problem with the IJN scheme was that especially if you were trying to mitigate damage in the middle of a battle you could easily loose many/most of your damage control capability. On a higher level how competent and professional is a military that lets itself be put in the position that Japan ended up in?

 

Soviet Union (within 1939 borders)[10]168,500,000

Estonia (within 1939 borders) 1,100,000[47][48]
Latvia (within 1939 borders) 1,900,000[47][48]
Lithuania (within 1939 borders[49][50]) 2,500,000[47][48]
Poland, Eastern Regions 11,500,000[48][51][52]
Romania Bessarabia and Bukovina 3,700,000 [47]
Less: population transfers ethnic Germans 1939-1941 (400,000)[53]
Growth of population 1939–mid-1941 7,900,000[46]

Approx. Totals (borders 1946-1991) 196,700,000[46

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Parts of Finland, which the USSR robbed in 1940 (and again in1944) did not yield any extra population to the USSR, since ALL (= 420.000) escaped from the soviet hands. IIRC only 19 (nineteen) Finnish individuals stayed.

 

I think its pretty amazing that after all the casualties suffered by Russia in the First World War, followed by the Communist Revolution and Civil War that followed, and all the purges and deaths brought upon by Stalin's policies that they were able to maintain a steady population. All those Central Asian -stan countries must have helped.

 

Well - we can't be sure about the published soviet population (or any other) figures. First of all the population was not counted every year (AFAIK it still isn't). The numbers were estimates based on various parameters.

Secondly all published data was supposed to back the communist system, i.e. to show constant "progress" in all aspects of society - the population growth included. The desired results were decided first, the numbers were then fixed to fit those results.

 

Not comparable situations. At the time China was only a unified country on paper. In reality it was governed by a coalition of semi-feudal warlords who ran their own fiefdoms and minted their own coins. Yes, I mean literal silver coins: the mainstay currency of the nation was precious metal coins and bars. China also didn't have an industry to speak of. There were next to no heavy industries and the Chinese didn't field any weapon that was domestically designed. Its army was not fit to fight WWI.

 

Yes, but we should compare army sizes at the same year when such data are available. Before the 1940 mobilization, the total strength of the U.S. regular army was 200,000, and only two divisions were organized: the 1st Cav. Div and 2d Inf. Div. There were an equal number of National Guards, but Guardsmen really were not battle worthy; they were more or less internal security troops deployed to impose order during major strikes, riots and natural disasters, not fighting an enemy army. At 1941, as you are surely aware, the Wehrmacht put more men and machines on the Ostfront than the entire US Army had anywhere.

The German Empire always had an army by universal conscription. That tradition was briefly interrupted by the Treaty of Versailles, but the bureaucrats and soldiers with the know-how still lived and could be put back in use, and Hitler in fact did so. The US government, by contrast, did not even have a universal citizenry registry for name, age and place of residence until the 30s in the form of Social Security codes. There was very little in the way of institutional knowledge of modern warfare, except less than two years of World War I. The Army simply wasn't something the US government invested serious resources even in the best of times.

 

Don't see Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, Italy, Hungary, Romania.....

 

Neither do we see Great Britain nor the rest of the Empire, Free Norway/France/Poland/Czechoslovakia etc...

 

This thread has been up here for three weeks, with regular replies throughout that time period. How on earth have I missed this? I am on this forum every day!!!

GREAT thread! I have pondered this exact question for YEARS!

(Is there an "Ignore" feature here I don't know about that I might have hit?)

 

Hmmmm....I'll get away from the unprovable assertions of which "soldier" was best and give my opinion on which Army was best.

My vote goes to the Wehrmacht. It was arguably THE best fighting Army, pound for pound, in history. That of course, could not save their cause when their maniacal Fuehrer attacked Russia and declared war on the US. But I think a review of WW2 battles will bear me out when I say that I don't think there were very many engagements where the sides were about even in terms of men and materiel, that the Wehrmacht did not win.

The Japanese Army was laughable when compared to the US or Germany or Soviet Russia. Remember what Zhukov did to them in, what was it - 1939? When the two armies briefly clashed along the Chino-Soviet border. Their equipment was vastly inferior and their doctrine and tactics were almost suicidal in some ways.

NOTE: The above comment applies to ARMIES only.