German vs Soviet casualties

Are you off topic or am I misunderstanding? I'm talking about total Kursk casualties. Triple C said most soviet casualties are 1941 or so.
That's not true because even at Kursk in 1943 they took in massive casualties and more than the Germans.

 

It really depends on how you count them. If military deaths in the Soviet was 10,000,000 then they would have suffered fifty per cent of all mlitary casaulties at the first year (about 5,000,000). It would appear that independent of the estimates one use, 1941 remained to be the bloodiest year of fighting for the Red Army, and casaulties on that year alone nearly equaled the total lossess of rest of the war addd up together.

 

Yelta. I remember in Yale's Sources of the Twentieth Century there was a personal history of the Yelda conference written by a member of Truman's cabinet, who wrote that the Americans were awed by the horrible ruin of Russia.

 

It seems that conversely, the German Officer Corps was decimated towards the end of the war, mostly from casualtie, granted, but to some degree, also from Nazi 'purges.'

 

That may be, but Truman never flew to Moscow, never personally saw the destruction in Russia, and for that reason, was very unlikely to have commented on it. He did, however, shortly after the end of the war, fly to Potsdam near Berlin and the pilot of his plane flew at low altitude so that Truman could personally observe the damage that was wrought in Germany. Truman made an entry in his diary that describes seeing mile after mile of ruined German cities and towns.

As for the Yalta Conference (I assume that's what you're referring to), it was held in February, 1945, while Roosevelt was still alive, and the war in Europe was still under way; Truman, still the Vice-president, did not attend. Roosevelt's entourage flew into Yalta, which is on the southwest coast of the Crimean peninsula, from Alexandria in Egypt. The route was generally north-northeast, and across the eastern Med, Turkey, and the Black Sea. For obvious reasons, Roosevelt and his advisers did not cross over European Russia and thus could not have seen any of the destruction which had occurred in Russia, at least not on that trip. It's entirely possible, however, that some of Roosevelt's civilian and military advisers had observed some of the destruction in Russia on other trips to, and from, Moscow that occurred throughout the war.

 

This text is related to this matter:

http://www.uni.edu/~licari/brute.htm

 

My apologies. I meant Roosevelt. I had some serious sleep deprevation working the mad minute for a conference. Recall and typing had suffered considerably, as you can see.

The Crimean patch of Russia Roosevelt visited was devasted. The Germans fought there during Operation Blue at 1942 and reconstruction of the Crimean Peninsula probably was not a Russian priority. According to a US diplomat and Russia expert Charles E. Bohlen, who acompanied Theodore Roosevelt:

 

That sleep deprivation must still be affecting you; I think you mean Franklin Roosevelt.

 

Roosevelt, Schmoosevelt, it all sounds Dutch to me

 

The battle of Stalingrad was the bloodiest battl of ww2

 

Not far from the truth really.... but I too would like to know his reasoning

 

I would also mark it to the top of the bloodiest battles because of the amount of casualties compared to the city size.

 

Battle of Moscow was nasty.

 

Going back a page or two in this thread, the civilian casualty statistics (also in China) are absolutely appalling.
Especially as these are estimates only.

In addition, I was completely shocked by the Indonesia statistics. I had no idea...
What on earth is the background there? I've not read or seen much of anything on this topic.

Polish stats are at least relateable due to the Jewish carnage.

From World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Size of this preview: 800 × 520 pixels. Other resolutions: 320 × 208 pixels | 640 × 416 pixels.