Oliver Stone's Untold History of America

[Malthus]

When someone names their series the "Untold History Of The United States", it is reasonable to expect some actual contrarian history, even if the average mook on the street knows nothing about history.

Well yeah if the assumption is you are talking to people who have not heard any history then anything can be untold.

The Untold History of England: the Anglo-Saxon kingdom was invaded in 1066 by Normans!

[Razgovory]

Being taken prisoner was a major factor in ending the war.  If there were no Western Armies to surrender to, then they wouldn't have surrendered.  They would have kept on fighting.  The German government tried to surrender only to the Western allies at first.  Only after being told that no surrender would be accepted that didn't include the Soviets did the Germans finally give up.  The presence of the Western Armies was essentially like steam valve, allowing German pressure to against the Soviet to dissipate.  With out that mechanism, they would have to fight all those Germans.

Yes. Doesn't change the fact that the number you cited does not tell us anything about the comparative effort of the Americans and Soviets which is what both your original post and the thread are about.

Okay, I give up.  What is it exactly you want me to say here?

[mongers]

I've seen figures based on the number of months each division spent deployed on active front and iirc 79% of total German active combat was spent against Soviet units. 

The discussion about who provide what resources, is a bit misleading as it's looking at them the wrong way, what's more important is that those are a consequence of the allies co-operating and planning production between them. So whether its US yard concentrating on merchant tonnage to allow the UK yards to concentrate on naval repairs or the Soviets concentrating on tanks with the Americans providing lots of trucks and electronics for the Red Army.

All of which stands in stark contrast with the threadbare attempts by the Axis partners to work together. 

[DGuller]

Here is a question to WW2 historians.  Looking at the casualty statistics, it seems like Soviet military casualties were only twice as high as German military casualties, 10 million to 5 million.  If you take out 1941, where about 4 million Soviets were killed, or taken prisoner and almost certain to die, while Germans suffered considerably less, it almost looks like Soviets and Germans traded casualties close to 1-1 ratio after Moscow.  Was it really the case?  The narrative seems to be that throughout the entire war, Soviets took on much more casualties, but had more replacements waiting, while Germans were being bled dry.

[Zanza]

Being taken prisoner was a major factor in ending the war.  If there were no Western Armies to surrender to, then they wouldn't have surrendered.  They would have kept on fighting.  The German government tried to surrender only to the Western allies at first.  Only after being told that no surrender would be accepted that didn't include the Soviets did the Germans finally give up.  The presence of the Western Armies was essentially like steam valve, allowing German pressure to against the Soviet to dissipate.  With out that mechanism, they would have to fight all those Germans.

Yes. Doesn't change the fact that the number you cited does not tell us anything about the comparative effort of the Americans and Soviets which is what both your original post and the thread are about.

Okay, I give up.  What is it exactly you want me to say here?

Nothing. I am just saying that what you already said was not relevant considering the topic.

[Razgovory]

Here is a question to WW2 historians.  Looking at the casualty statistics, it seems like Soviet military casualties were only twice as high as German military casualties, 10 million to 5 million.  If you take out 1941, where about 4 million Soviets were killed, or taken prisoner and almost certain to die, while Germans suffered considerably less, it almost looks like Soviets and Germans traded casualties close to 1-1 ratio after Moscow.  Was it really the case?  The narrative seems to be that throughout the entire war, Soviets took on much more casualties, but had more replacements waiting, while Germans were being bled dry.

I believe casualty rates were close to 1-1 after Kursk.  Keep in mind that the Germans were also fighting elsewhere and Germany wasn't the only country to be fighting in the Soviet Union.

[Razgovory]

Nothing. I am just saying that what you already said was not relevant considering the topic.

Well, so long as I don't have to do anything.  I'm still not following your thinking here though.

[Zanza]

Here is a question to WW2 historians.  Looking at the casualty statistics, it seems like Soviet military casualties were only twice as high as German military casualties, 10 million to 5 million.  If you take out 1941, where about 4 million Soviets were killed, or taken prisoner and almost certain to die, while Germans suffered considerably less, it almost looks like Soviets and Germans traded casualties close to 1-1 ratio after Moscow.  Was it really the case?  The narrative seems to be that throughout the entire war, Soviets took on much more casualties, but had more replacements waiting, while Germans were being bled dry.

Germany probably lost about 2.7 million soldiers on the Eastern Front until the end of 1944, with close to half of that in 1944 alone. The Soviets had probably lost about 7-9 million by then. The final months in Germany were particularly bloody for the German army and it probably lost about 800.000 men against the Soviets. So that makes about 3.5 million to 8.5-10.5 million.
It's likely that a hundreds of thousands died as POWs after the war as well.

[Josephus]

I give most people more credit then some of you guys.

You probably believe in haunted toasters too.

[Syt]

Here is a question to WW2 historians.  Looking at the casualty statistics, it seems like Soviet military casualties were only twice as high as German military casualties, 10 million to 5 million.  If you take out 1941, where about 4 million Soviets were killed, or taken prisoner and almost certain to die, while Germans suffered considerably less, it almost looks like Soviets and Germans traded casualties close to 1-1 ratio after Moscow.  Was it really the case?  The narrative seems to be that throughout the entire war, Soviets took on much more casualties, but had more replacements waiting, while Germans were being bled dry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Casualties