The Nazis and the Russians. I’d actually have to check the numbers on this, but I’m pretty sure that the Nazis and the Russians killed more of each other than any other belligerents in World War II. By a lot.
I might be misremembering this, but I think it’s one of the reasons why Eisenhower let the Soviets take Berlin, because it would help with post war diplomacy.
Because Germany and russia both refused to evolve their military tactics past a certain point and the ideology of both countries saw their soldiers as worthless and disposable, the loss of life on the German and russian sides was incomprehensibly big.
Europe has a fatal obsession with meat wave assaults that has so far largely shown itself incapable of letting go of, Ukraine’s military being the exception that Europe is still reluctant to learn from.
I believe this comes from a long history in Europe of incestous royalty fighting wars against each other where the pummeling and obliteration of the peasant class on both sides was a boon for the ruling class on both sides. War was a safe way to cull populist energy from the lower classes without threatening the power of the ruling class. Winning efficiently wasn’t really the point.
It took the indigenous peoples of the US kicking the US army’s ass to break the US out of that dead end of fighting philosophy.
Ukraine broke this longstanding unspoken rule of war among the European ruling class.
The distinctly brutal nature of warfare on the Eastern Front was exemplified by an often willful disregard for human life by both sides. It was also reflected in the ideological premise for the war, which saw a momentous clash between two directly opposed ideologies.
Aside from the ideological conflict, the mindframe of the leaders of Germany and the Soviet Union, Hitler and Stalin, respectively, contributed to the escalation of terror and murder on an unprecedented scale. Stalin and Hitler both disregarded human life in order to achieve their goal of victory. This included the terrorisation of their own people, as well as mass deportations of entire populations. All these factors resulted in tremendous brutality both to combatants and civilians that found no parallel on the Western Front
Actually a large portion (>60%) of the Russian deaths by Nazi hands were civilian. Over 7 million (compared to the 8.7 million military deaths) were a direct result of the Nazi extermination policy while 2.5 million died in labor camps and 4 ish million starved. (Estimates vary from historian to historian but these are the wikipedia numbers) The Russians didn’t have a high casualty count because they “didn’t care about their soldiers” and “practiced meat wave assaults.” They had a high casualty count because the Nazis wanted to exterminate them and were honestly quite good at it sometimes. You are perpuating anti-communist myths created by people intent on reducing the USSRs popularity immediately following their liberation of Europe from fascism.
I’ll give it to you that the Red Army made risky moves that got people killed unnecessarily but I think your analysis as to why is superficial and idealist.
Your argument doesn’t make sense, the casualties on the russian side were massive before capture even came into the picture.
The argument you should have gone with is that russia was starved of materials from Barbarossa, especially artillery so russia had to rely on brutally inefficient infantry tactics in the absence of proper combined arms support but even that doesn’t explain the casualness towards throwing away human lives the russian military had/has.
Yes the meatwave tropes are reductive but the reality is russia is attrocious at war and that hasn’t really changed.
Attrition warfare is a form of military strategy in which one side attempts to gradually wear down its opponent to the point of collapse by inflicting continuous losses in personnel, material, and morale.[1] The term attrition is derived from the Latin word atterere, meaning “to wear down” or “to rub against”, reflecting the grinding nature of the strategy.[2][3]
The last major war fought with this as the dominant strategy was World War I (in the style of trench warfare), most preeminently at the Battle of the Somme. While World War II was begun with this strategy, it quickly fell off, with battle groups and lines breaking off into smaller, more mobile, and more versatile combat groups, pioneered by American commando units which could rapidly outmaneuver enemy troop deployments.
Germany of course pioneered blitzkrieg warfare in large part but the thing is you can teach fascists how to fight effectively all you want, they will always unlearn it in favor of fighting in a way that alligns with their aesthetics and ideology that drew them to violence in the first place.
Russia and Germany were happy to do this together even as in many ways fighting efficiency increased, neither side on the Eastern Front gave a shit about human life.
The Nazis and the Russians. I’d actually have to check the numbers on this, but I’m pretty sure that the Nazis and the Russians killed more of each other than any other belligerents in World War II. By a lot.
I might be misremembering this, but I think it’s one of the reasons why Eisenhower let the Soviets take Berlin, because it would help with post war diplomacy.
deleted by creator
Because Germany and russia both refused to evolve their military tactics past a certain point and the ideology of both countries saw their soldiers as worthless and disposable, the loss of life on the German and russian sides was incomprehensibly big.
Europe has a fatal obsession with meat wave assaults that has so far largely shown itself incapable of letting go of, Ukraine’s military being the exception that Europe is still reluctant to learn from.
I believe this comes from a long history in Europe of incestous royalty fighting wars against each other where the pummeling and obliteration of the peasant class on both sides was a boon for the ruling class on both sides. War was a safe way to cull populist energy from the lower classes without threatening the power of the ruling class. Winning efficiently wasn’t really the point.
It took the indigenous peoples of the US kicking the US army’s ass to break the US out of that dead end of fighting philosophy.
Ukraine broke this longstanding unspoken rule of war among the European ruling class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)
https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/eastern-front-ww2-what-went-wrong-why/
true for germany, not for soviet union. they were defending their homeland
Do you think fascists won’t defend their homeland?
Of course they will, but first they will try to become allies with Hitler and then be totally caught offguard when it backfires.
so you are saying soviets shouldve allowed germs to invade them to “save human lives”?
Actually a large portion (>60%) of the Russian deaths by Nazi hands were civilian. Over 7 million (compared to the 8.7 million military deaths) were a direct result of the Nazi extermination policy while 2.5 million died in labor camps and 4 ish million starved. (Estimates vary from historian to historian but these are the wikipedia numbers) The Russians didn’t have a high casualty count because they “didn’t care about their soldiers” and “practiced meat wave assaults.” They had a high casualty count because the Nazis wanted to exterminate them and were honestly quite good at it sometimes. You are perpuating anti-communist myths created by people intent on reducing the USSRs popularity immediately following their liberation of Europe from fascism.
I’ll give it to you that the Red Army made risky moves that got people killed unnecessarily but I think your analysis as to why is superficial and idealist.
Your argument doesn’t make sense, the casualties on the russian side were massive before capture even came into the picture.
The argument you should have gone with is that russia was starved of materials from Barbarossa, especially artillery so russia had to rely on brutally inefficient infantry tactics in the absence of proper combined arms support but even that doesn’t explain the casualness towards throwing away human lives the russian military had/has.
Yes the meatwave tropes are reductive but the reality is russia is attrocious at war and that hasn’t really changed.
this specific tactic was known as Attrition Warfare
The last major war fought with this as the dominant strategy was World War I (in the style of trench warfare), most preeminently at the Battle of the Somme. While World War II was begun with this strategy, it quickly fell off, with battle groups and lines breaking off into smaller, more mobile, and more versatile combat groups, pioneered by American commando units which could rapidly outmaneuver enemy troop deployments.
Germany of course pioneered blitzkrieg warfare in large part but the thing is you can teach fascists how to fight effectively all you want, they will always unlearn it in favor of fighting in a way that alligns with their aesthetics and ideology that drew them to violence in the first place.
Russia and Germany were happy to do this together even as in many ways fighting efficiency increased, neither side on the Eastern Front gave a shit about human life.
nazi apologia right here
I sourced evidence, all I see is cope from you.
no you didnt, this is total bullshit and it doesnt even matter
You are correct. This video helps visualise the quantities, it’s nuts:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DwKPFT-RioU&t=285s I’ve put a time jump to the relevant part but if it doesn’t work go to 4:45