It's nice to see that some people do actually know history.(see post 91 for ex.)
In eastern front the combined casualties of soviet and german forces were about
14 000 000 (!!!) VS
(excluding wounded, died in captivity etc.)
in western front (starting from D-day 44-45) combined German+Allied (excluding soviet) casualties estimate about
1 500 000 personel. i.e. about 10% of that of the eastern front.
Huh? I mean how can this question even rise?
How can you compare 90% vs 10%?!
Other than that - a lot of factors contributed to the victory over Germany. Each battle, american industry etc etc. But it were the soviet soldiers who were fighting almost alone - for 3,5 years (the western governments reasonably wanted to weaken Stalins forces as much as possible and save their own people i.e. let soviets die instead. Which is only logical). As some knowing people stated above me - D-day was to establish influence in europe, rather than defeat Germany. Without it, though later and with more casualties, soviets, would flood Europe anyway.
The other three myths here
1. Russians won because of winter
- it was as hard for russians, as it was for germans. I assure you, german military was supplied not worse than russian. Winter came early not because the offencive was late (it started in summer), but because soviet forces 'held the line'. (which was because of the vast resourses of russia and the spirit of people)
2. Hitler was stupid to attack Russia.
- He did not really have a choice. Really. He knew , that if he didn't attack (and it was at insanely sucessfull moment) , the worlds biggest military, and very agrressive force would be at his back, ready to strike. (for example russians had 20 000 tanks in 41 including 3000 T34 that were vastly superior to german tanks of the time, when germans had 2000). So attack was his only opportunity - and was really successful. (Although unlike the rest of europe russians didn't surrender after a couple of weeks, as expected, rather the opposite)
3. Russian fought with "zerg rush" and bodies.
That is not true. Although, due to the collapses of the 1941 (initial Barbarossa atack) there were periods, when russian military was based on numbers rather than quality, and human lives were never valued as much in Soviet union as in european countries, but since 1942 and up to 1945 russian military was highly advanced technically and mostly professional force, that additionally had quite significant numbers. For the win!. ^^.
The turning point on the eastern front was the Moscow battle, when germans didn't have enough force to pull through russian bodies and were stopped. (about 1mln were busy providing blocade of Leningrad, which was also holding and therefore could not join.). Stalingrad and Kursk were only the successors of that first victory.
In eastern front the combined casualties of soviet and german forces were about
14 000 000 (!!!) VS
(excluding wounded, died in captivity etc.)
in western front (starting from D-day 44-45) combined German+Allied (excluding soviet) casualties estimate about
1 500 000 personel. i.e. about 10% of that of the eastern front.
Huh? I mean how can this question even rise?
How can you compare 90% vs 10%?!
Other than that - a lot of factors contributed to the victory over Germany. Each battle, american industry etc etc. But it were the soviet soldiers who were fighting almost alone - for 3,5 years (the western governments reasonably wanted to weaken Stalins forces as much as possible and save their own people i.e. let soviets die instead. Which is only logical). As some knowing people stated above me - D-day was to establish influence in europe, rather than defeat Germany. Without it, though later and with more casualties, soviets, would flood Europe anyway.
The other three myths here
1. Russians won because of winter
- it was as hard for russians, as it was for germans. I assure you, german military was supplied not worse than russian. Winter came early not because the offencive was late (it started in summer), but because soviet forces 'held the line'. (which was because of the vast resourses of russia and the spirit of people)
2. Hitler was stupid to attack Russia.
- He did not really have a choice. Really. He knew , that if he didn't attack (and it was at insanely sucessfull moment) , the worlds biggest military, and very agrressive force would be at his back, ready to strike. (for example russians had 20 000 tanks in 41 including 3000 T34 that were vastly superior to german tanks of the time, when germans had 2000). So attack was his only opportunity - and was really successful. (Although unlike the rest of europe russians didn't surrender after a couple of weeks, as expected, rather the opposite)
3. Russian fought with "zerg rush" and bodies.
That is not true. Although, due to the collapses of the 1941 (initial Barbarossa atack) there were periods, when russian military was based on numbers rather than quality, and human lives were never valued as much in Soviet union as in european countries, but since 1942 and up to 1945 russian military was highly advanced technically and mostly professional force, that additionally had quite significant numbers. For the win!. ^^.
The turning point on the eastern front was the Moscow battle, when germans didn't have enough force to pull through russian bodies and were stopped. (about 1mln were busy providing blocade of Leningrad, which was also holding and therefore could not join.). Stalingrad and Kursk were only the successors of that first victory.
