Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's just not WWI, there are minefields all over the world that still kill people that wander into them.

The only reason WW2 had more combat casualties than WWI is that the USSR decided to defend their country with a meat wall of unprepared soldiers. That generation of Russians had like an 80% casualty rate or something crazy like that. Nearly wiped out an entire generation.



> The only reason WW2 had more combat casualties than WWI is that the USSR decided to defend their country with a meat wall of unprepared soldiers. That generation of Russians had like an 80% casualty rate or something crazy like that. Nearly wiped out an entire generation.

I read that claim quite often, it's not entirely accurate: "The Buzzfeed claim is overstated, although not by a wide margin. Around two thirds (more exactly, 68%) of the original 1923 male birth cohort did not survive World War II. But the war is not the most important reason for the poor survival rate; almost half of them died before the war broke out."

More: http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/markharrison/entry/was_the_soviet...


Let me correct that phrase: One of the main reasons WW2 ended, was because the Russians defended their country fiercely with their lives, and because the communism establishment industrialized Russia enough to produce war munitions and equipment. I hate to see people injecting anti-communist bullshit everywhere, even when it's irrelevant.

The Russians, and the people of the USSR, like all the allied forces, died heroically in the battlefield fighting fascists. Calling them a "meat wall" really fucking grinds my gears as it's extremely insulting and derogatory to the dead.


>The Russians, and the people of the USSR, like all the allied forces, died heroically in the battlefield fighting fascists.

You mean before they were fighting alongside the facsists. I mean that sounds great and heroic if you completely ignore the fact that Russia and Germany were allies and co-invaded Eastern Europe, thus starting the European front war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact

But I will agree with you, Russia probably did the most to turn the tide of the war, but they really didn't have a choice. Hitler turned on them and they were fortunate to be included in the allied forces rather than defending their motherland against everybody. Patton wanted to drive into Russia after Germany and we were the only nuclear power in the world.

I mean in WWI, they abandoned the allied war effort before they slaughtered the Romanov's and in WW2 they started on the axis side. In between the government starved millions of people. What were you saying about anti-communist propaganda? Sounds like they don't need any help in that regard.

>Calling them a "meat wall" really fucking grinds my gears as it's extremely insulting and derogatory to the dead.

Give me a break, I'm sure Poland really weeps for them. Read about what the Soviets did when entering Germany (not that Germany was any better invading Russia).


> communism establishment industrialized Russia enough to produce war munitions and equipment

They lost most of the munitions and equipment in first _months_ of war, and lost half of the factories as well.

So they had to rely on lend-lease from much-hated capitalists.

And yes, human waves (if you don't like other term) and general disregard for human lives were common in Soviet tactics. That's the reason for staggering losses (they still cannot get their number right, now there are talks that USSR losses were 2x higher, i.e. ~40 millions).


I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Please read some actual historians work concerning the Eastern Front like Glantz or Zaloga before spewing pop history nonsense.


Yeah, definitely no idea. Several years spent researching into WW2 history - and all are for nothing.

Thank you, good sir, I will drink myself out.

But before I indulge myself into drowning myself in beer, can you please elaborate, where you'd saw a 'pop history nonsense'?


> Several years spent researching into WW2 history - and all are for nothing.

Well, I don't know where you did, but you shild ask for a refund if that's what you got on the Eastern Front after several years.

> where you'd saw a 'pop history nonsense'?

> They lost most of the munitions and equipment in first _months_ of war, and lost half of the factories as well.

Indeed, they lost a lot of (mostly obsolete) equipment, but still were able to out produce the Germans from 1942 on in most areas.

> and lost half of the factories as well.

And still had enough to bring back to the Urals (as well as pre-established ones) to keep war industry running.

> And yes, human waves (if you don't like other term) and general disregard for human lives were common in Soviet tactics.

Yah, that's German propaganda for you man. They were

> That's the reason for staggering losses

Absolutely nothing to do with the litteral extermination of Soviet PoW by the Germans (more than 3M deaths).

> now there are talks that USSR losses were 2x higher, i.e. ~40 millions

Is unsourced rumor that literally more than one out of 5 Soviet citizen died in the war really worth to mention?

> human waves were common in Soviet tactics

Please let me show you some orders directly from Zhukov:

The commanders of the divisions are personally at fault for the 49th Army's failure to accomplish its objectives and for its heavy casualties. They still grossly violate the instructions of Comrade Stalin and the order of the Front regarding the use of massed artillery to achieve a breakthrough, and about the tactics and techniques of attacking the defenses of populated areas. The units of the 49th Army for many days criminally continue their head-on attacks on Kostino, Ostrozhnoye, Bogdanovo and Potapovo without any success, while suffering heavy losses.

Even a person with basic military education can understand that these settlements are very suitable defensive positions. The areas in front of these settlements are ideal for firing upon, but despite this the criminally conducted attacks continue in the same places. As a result of the stupidity and indiscipline of the organizers, people pay with their lives, without bringing any benefit to the Motherland.

If you still want to keep your current ranks, I demand:

Immediately stop the criminal head-on attacks on the settlements. Stop the head-on attacks on heights with good firing positions. When attacking make full use of ravines, forests and terrain that is not easily fired upon. Immediately breakthrough between the settlements and, without waiting for their complete fall, tomorrow capture Sloboda, Rassvet and advance up to Levshina. Report the execution of the order to me by 24:00 of 27 January.

Yes, there were stupid head-on attacks from inexperienced and/or incompetent officers. No, they were not “common Soviet tactics”.


> Is unsourced rumor that literally more than one out of 5 Soviet citizen died in the war really worth to mention?

Are you aware of their reluctancy to show true numbers? In 1946 they've declared the number of losses as 7 millions. 15 years later - 20 millions. 40 years later - 27 millions.

Now, 70 years later, they're talking about 40 millions.


Here's a "meat grinder" all the way into 1943.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Rzhev

Zhukov was a commander. Read about the ammunition famine - 3 bullets per rifle. Sounds like a meat wave to me.


I believe the commenter above is being historically accurate when it comes to human wave attacks (specifically in terms of infantrymen operating in fire teams that shared one rifle among several men attacking the enemy in enfillade). I mean, the necessity of doing this in battles like Orel and Stalingrad is described in Zhukov's memoirs which are not exactly anticommunist propaganda.


> is being historically accurate when it comes to human wave attacks

He is not.

> specifically in terms of infantrymen operating in fire teams that shared one rifle among several men attacking the enemy in enfillade

That's bullshit straight from Enemy at the Gates and CoD2.

> is described in Zhukov's memoirs

I happen to have them on my shelf, I'd like you to point me to the pages you're referring.


Did you reaed historian Mark Solonin?

Or Eisenhower memoirs? He mentions a quote from Zhukov:

> There are two kinds of mines; one is the personnel mine and the other is the vehicular mine. When we come to a mine field our infantry attacks exactly as if it were not there.


OK, so we go from Zhukov's memoir to Eisenhower's...

Now, in the context: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6rabb3/did_t...


So, Russian historian _translates_ Eisehnower's words into his own narrative? Color me surprised.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: