Of course, aerial warfare was also crucial, and there the US and UK played a larger role. And both countries supported the Soviet Union’s ground fight through the Lend-Lease program. Britain’s fight in Africa also deserves some credit; while the losses incurred by Germans there were nowhere near as large as those suffered on the Eastern Front, the second battle in El Alamein, Egypt was hugely important in preventing the Nazis from seizing much of the Middle East. That the Soviet contribution was the most important by no means suggests that the American and British contributions were insignificant or inessential.
Another possible way to compare would be to look at how many German soldiers were killed by the Soviets as opposed to the US or UK. But that’s a bit of a difficult comparison to make. As Michael Charles explains, the Soviets killed more Germans than the US or UK, but the US and UK captured more, so some of the Soviets’ edge is probably attributable to the Red Army just being more brutal than the American or British Armies. Then again, a lot of those captured troops came at the end of the war, when it was more or less random which army German units wound up surrendering to, and didn’t really reflect the relative effectiveness of the Allied armies. Overall, Charles’ analysis suggests that the Soviets took more German troops out of commission than the other Allies did, but the numbers are necessarily rough.
If you’re looking at the human toll of the war, the Soviets clearly incurred the heaviest losses. Tony Judt’s Postwar citesestimates suggesting there were 8.6 million Soviet military deaths and over 16 million civilian deaths in World War II. The USlost 418,500 military and civilians in all theaters of the war — still a staggering figure, but not on the same scale as Soviet losses. Of course, it’s possible — and highly preferable! — to contribute significantly to the war effort without losing many lives in the process, so casualty figures aren’t necessarily a good measure of countries’ relative contributions. But it’s worth reflecting on just how massive the sacrifice the Soviet people made was.
P.S. : German divisions :
_____East front___West front___Other
1942 : 179(79%) 38(17%) 9(4%)
1943 : 187(73%) 50(20%) 19(7%)
1944 : 165(60%) 86(31%) 23(9%)
Another possible way to compare would be to look at how many German soldiers were killed by the Soviets as opposed to the US or UK. But that’s a bit of a difficult comparison to make. As Michael Charles explains, the Soviets killed more Germans than the US or UK, but the US and UK captured more, so some of the Soviets’ edge is probably attributable to the Red Army just being more brutal than the American or British Armies. Then again, a lot of those captured troops came at the end of the war, when it was more or less random which army German units wound up surrendering to, and didn’t really reflect the relative effectiveness of the Allied armies. Overall, Charles’ analysis suggests that the Soviets took more German troops out of commission than the other Allies did, but the numbers are necessarily rough.
If you’re looking at the human toll of the war, the Soviets clearly incurred the heaviest losses. Tony Judt’s Postwar citesestimates suggesting there were 8.6 million Soviet military deaths and over 16 million civilian deaths in World War II. The USlost 418,500 military and civilians in all theaters of the war — still a staggering figure, but not on the same scale as Soviet losses. Of course, it’s possible — and highly preferable! — to contribute significantly to the war effort without losing many lives in the process, so casualty figures aren’t necessarily a good measure of countries’ relative contributions. But it’s worth reflecting on just how massive the sacrifice the Soviet people made was.
P.S. : German divisions :
_____East front___West front___Other
1942 : 179(79%) 38(17%) 9(4%)
1943 : 187(73%) 50(20%) 19(7%)
1944 : 165(60%) 86(31%) 23(9%)
百科尹相逢
阿拉伯语也行
