War's vanishing world in Europe

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by CCIP

America: Priding itself on war-readiness, having fought no wars on home soil for over 140 years and having lost a low single-digit percentage of troops and a miniscule fraction of civilians out of the total WWI and II casualties and as compared to the Europeans.

Seriously, I would love to see what the macho conservative American's attitude to war would be tens of millions of dead sons and daughters later :hmm:

On the western front in WW2, America had more military casualties than any other nation. We paid a higher price than any European nation.
Show me any European nation that lost tens of millions.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

On the western front in WW2, America had more military casualties than any other nation. We paid a higher price than any European nation.
Show me any European nation that lost tens of millions.

This is true. Sad that people don't give a crap about it.

-S

[August]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

And do you not think that might have something to do with your geographical situation?

Show me where i said it didn't. Reading comprehension FTW.

[XXi]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

On the western front in WW2, America had more military casualties than any other nation. We paid a higher price than any European nation.
Show me any European nation that lost tens of millions.

?
Whole Western Front was secondary in losses and amount of soldiers involved to the Eastern Front. Plus, you`re forgetting the scale of the conflict which makes your statement sound... well, strange to say the least. Besides, you`re forgetting civilian loses. Just one example: true, Poland lost just about 160,000 men in the military. I undersand, that over 5 million civilians, including Jews doesn`t count, right?
The Red Army had much more casualties throughout the war than the American army. USSR lost approx. 25-27 millions and it wasn`t the only country that suffered really heavy loses.

I guess that`s the point - America has not expierienced an exhausting war fought on the American soil and it`s good at least one nation was spared such expierience.
In Europe, it was all other - except few countries that managed, on various purposes, to remain neutral for both wars, every nation suffered heavy casualties and expierienced a total war.
Remember 911? It was a tragedy and a shock, to be sure. There was a lot of talking about a tremendous loss of life and a deep wound to the America. All true, but on the other hand I couldn`t stop thinking about my city, Warsaw. During the Warsaw uprising, for two months, similiar amount of people were killed every single day. During whole war, the city was destroyed to a degree similiar to Hiroshima, with most of the buildings demolished and about half of the population killed, sent to concentration camp, massacred. The results - in both society and the architecture of the city are very visible even today.

Please, spare me the text about the higher price as there were more cities that met similiar fate. There were armies that have lost just as many people as the American Army or more, if not in WW2 then in WW1.
You can say that there`s a conncetion between amount of the French losses in WW1 and their behaviour in WW2, no to wonder actually.

Now, just to sketch an idea how result of the war may affect the people`s feelings about war:

imagine that there was a war on the American soil now. No matter, with whom, no matter the result actually. Ok, let`s imagine that America wins and that the nuclear weapon has not been used and all finished relatively well.
Except the fact that both Coasts have been crushed. Except the fact that New York has been destroyed with most of its habitants. Except the fact the LA region is no more - it has been bombed, then invaded with most civilians executed or killed instantly. Except the fact that most major American cities and military bases are just ruins now. Except the fact that country`s industry and high-tech areas are deserted. Except the fact that people are starving and the country`s administration is shattered. Finally, except the fact that more than 50 mln Americans got killed and most of them were civilians and from military, 50% of conscripted men are never to return or return as handicapated.

Now think how such expierience could change the people`s minds towards war.

It`s good that there`s at least one nation not willing to give up and fight when necessary. I`m absolutely serious about this one. Just please keep in mind what could affect the other`s people view.

[mrbeast]

US fatalities in WWII 418,500 (0.32% of total population)

British fatalities in WWII 450,400 (0.94%)

Franch fatalities in WWII 562,000 (1.35%)

Polish fatalities in WWII 5,600,000 (16.07!)

Soviet Union fatalities in WWII 23,100,000 (13.71)

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

US fatalities in WWII 418,500 (0.32% of total population)

British fatalities in WWII 450,400 (0.94%)

Franch fatalities in WWII 562,000 (1.35%)

Polish fatalities in WWII 5,600,000 (16.07!)

Soviet Union fatalities in WWII 23,100,000 (13.71)

This graph does not agree with your above military results. The US has more than France and the British:

[August]

Originally Posted by XXi

Just please keep in mind what could affect the other`s people view.

Nobody is debating that, though it must be said that precious few living Europeans have experienced war, whereas we have war vets as young as 18. Perhaps it is because of that fact that Europeans may have forgotten the historical penalty for not having the ability to defend yourself.

[bradclark1]

Whole Western Front was secondary in losses and amount of soldiers involved to the Eastern Front. Plus, you`re forgetting the scale of the conflict which makes your statement sound... well, strange to say the least. Besides, you`re forgetting civilian loses. Just one example: true, Poland lost just about 160,000 men in the military. I undersand, that over 5 million civilians, including Jews doesn`t count, right?
The Red Army had much more casualties throughout the war than the American army. USSR lost approx. 25-27 millions and it wasn`t the only country that suffered really heavy loses.

Not strange. I specified Western Front. You also forgot China who lost slightly more than Russia. CCIP was talking specifically about Europe and it's losses (thats what I gathered anyway). No European country lost tens of millions of people so no, Polish civilian losses weren't tens of millions. I'm not downplaying civilian losses, I'm saying it wasn't tens of millions. The word tens to me means more than twenty million. The American armed forces had a bigger loss then most of the European military forces in WW2. Considering we weren't even threatened by the Axis powers our military losses count for a hell of a lot.
You are correct the U.S. has not had a foreign invader since 1812. The U.S. did not have to get involved in any European war yet we did. And it's doubtful that Germany would have lost either war without U.S. involvement. Am I suppose to feel guilty because we didn't loose millions? I'm not. We volunteered in each war.
I was answering specific questions. If you don't like my answers I'm sorry. What I answered is facts to those questions. Tell me where I'm wrong.

Now think how such expierience could change the people`s minds towards war.

What has that got to do with having a strong military as a deterrent to aggression?

It`s good that there`s at least one nation not willing to give up and fight when necessary. I`m absolutely serious about this one. Just please keep in mind what could affect the other`s people view.

I appreciate that but peoples views doesn't change the reality of a stronger military.
I will say this however because you really don't hear anything about it. Male populations. I can't speak about Poland because I haven't seen any data on it.
Even prior to WW1 the German male population has been on the rise while France's was on the decline.
WW1 devastated France's male population and put a good dent in the GB's but Germany was able to recover better than GB. By WW2 France"s male population was still on the decline so could they have fielded a bigger military? I don't believe so. That is one of the reasons that today France has such a huge Muslim population because they were needed to fill out the working manpower and militarily put a lot on it's Foreign Legion. German losses from WW1 and WW2 account for Germany's large Turkish population.
Great Britain had mobilized virtually every eligible adult male and was stretched to the breaking point which put a dent in Monty's ability to perform to expectations.
So. Could WW2 have been avoided? I don't believe so. But it is ammunition for fielding as big a military as possible so it doesn't happen again.

[AntEater]

Actually, the Turks did not fill population losses.
The italians, greeks, yugoslavians, spaniards and portuguese did.
The turks only started arriving in large numbers AFTER reconstruction was complete in the late 60s, basically due to retention of the guestworker laws, even though no one was needed anymore, mostly filling low wage jobs, while the original guestworkers from european countries worked in the industry.
But it is really strange that 7 years after 911, it is still treated as a national trauma:
In my vicinity, there's a medium sized town called Darmstadt. It had some chemical industries and Princess Alexandra of Russia was born there, but apart from that, wholly unremarkable.
That town was terror bombed in September 1944. I say terror bombed because the Merck chemical plant was totally missed and still uses its prewar factory halls while the ancient town centre was turned to rubble. 11,000 people burned to death.
Basically everyone living in town center was killed.
Thats four 911s in a single night and 10% of the total population of 1939.
All in all, Darmstadt lost 40% of its population in the war.
Yet 7 years after, in 1951, it had almost regained its old population number and while the city is certainly not as beautiful as before, it was habitable again.
So if there's some people showing real "manliness", it was those who still had to dig out scorched remains after 10 years when building a new house. There was no forensic examination, no memorials, no photo walls.
Just a mass grave and some small plaque in the city.
The people of Darmstadt carried on. But maybe its not a national thing and everybody today is just a little more sensible than back in WW2.
Everyone of my grandparents went through hell and back in WW2, yet still everyone managed to lead a successful life and raise a family.

Re the fact that it is all long ago, I suppose the kids born today will be the first europeans who will grow up without hearing any first hand stories of those days.

[mrbeast]

I have to disargee there Subman



I think it shows the UK slightly ahead there, possibly, but either way Britain and the US lost similar numbers during the war.

My figures also included civilian deaths BTW

(incidently I have not edited that image in any way other than to crop it zoom it and apply a red border around the significant part)

[bradclark1]

Acknowledged on the Turks. I just know from being stationed in Germany, Mainz and larger cities around Budingen had a large Turkish population. Not nearly so in Baumholder. I assumed it was because of WW2. My bad.

But it is really strange that 7 years after 911, it is still treated as a national trauma:

I think it's because Iraq has a direct correlation with 9/11 so it's still very much on peoples minds. Americans are emotional about such things. It's part of our makeup. I know that Munich had a impact for a good while in Germany.
A small number is a tragedy, a large number is a statistic. (A quote stolen from Stalin more or less).

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

I have to disargee there Subman



I think it shows the UK slightly ahead there, possibly, but either way Britain and the US lost similar numbers during the war.

My figures also included civilian deaths BTW

(incidently I have not edited that image in any way other than to crop it zoom it and apply a red border around the significant part)

Oh I know you haven't edited it. That dark part on the UK one is civi deaths - supposed to be green but its pretty small in number aboe the red bar. That is what you have the large blue bar to the bottom of that. The US is barely ahead, but not by anything significant. Its not a number one should be proud of either. It just puts it into perspective.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by AntEater

But it is really strange that 7 years after 911, it is still treated as a national trauma...

It is and always will be. One could understand it if it were part of war, but this is an attack during peace and will never be truely forgiven or forgotten. Same goes with Pearl Harbor - never truely forgiven or forgotten.

-S

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Oh I know you haven't edited it. That dark part on the UK one is civi deaths - supposed to be green but its pretty small in number aboe the red bar. That is what you have the large blue bar to the bottom of that. The US is barely ahead, but not by anything significant. Its not a number one should be proud of either. It just puts it into perspective.

-S

Great Britain lost 264,000 soldiers. The United States lost 292,000 soldiers.

[XXi]

@Augustus

Actually, there are more veterans at similiar age in Poland, thanks to Iraq. However, this are just my two cents.
You`re right about the ability to self - defence: lack of it and fear of war was one of the reasons Hitler could rise in power so quickly and effectively, just to name one striking example. I`m not arguing with this point as I agree that modern-day Europe seems to have way too little, too uneffective military power. It doesn`t have to be big in numbers, but it has to be effective. It isn`t
There`s one general problem: in the WWI era, most opponents of the European countries were other European countries. I`d like to discuss the matter separately, just not in one post. The modern era is different story, again, to be discussed.

@bradclark1

First, Russia is considered to be European country, so I must disagree and I must say that`s why I didn`t want to write about China, which is not European country. Even, if there are some controversies about this. Second, as I wrote: the Western Front wasn`t the only theatre of war. Third, why tens of millions? Do you want to claim that one fallen American is worth like ten Europeans? Besides, the numbers you`re claiming have little to do without the proper scale adn that, no4: it`s hard to imagine that countries which had significantly less people could loose just as many people as Americans. American Army was leading force in the West, no wonder it suffered greatest loses.
Still, and that`s the point number five: there were countries who had suffered heavier loses and there were battles with more people killed that there were in whole US military during the war.
So I`m not quite sure why do you state that the America paid higher price than any European nation. That`s the point.

As for strong military - what I wanted to point out is the fact that with some historical trauma, nations might seek other solutions that strong military power in order to defend themselves. It doesn`t have to mean the other means are always right - it just means that sometimes, people have enough of war so much that they don`t want to have anything with it anymore.

Which is sometimes very short-sightened behaviour.

@Subman
in Poland, there is similiar trauma connected to September 1st and German agression. There was no ofical declaration of war before it really started. Early in the morning, Luftwaffe attacked a non-military target, city of Wielun, killing hundreds of people. Just minutes later, 'Schlezwig-Holstein' opened fire on Westerplatte and in the same time first Luftwaffe bomber squadrons were flying against first civilian and military targets. There was no warning...
Such things are more traumatic that a war that starts with declaration, I must say.