Hacker News Reader

Comment by hinkley | Hacker News Reader

“Excuse me sir. Would you mind stepping over here for a moment? The delegates from the US and Russia would like to have a word in private.”

View on HN

Perhaps Russia should be doing most of the talking. It paid 20X or so more in lives than the US or UK to win WWII. US and UK losses were about the same.

Data from Wikipedia.

WWWII deaths:

Russia: 20,000,000 to 27,000,000

UK and colonies: 450,900

USA: 419,400

WWII Military dead:

Russia: 8,668,000 to 11,400,00

UK and colonies: 383,700

USA: 407,300

At the time the population of the US was roughly 3X the UK, and the USSR was roughly 1.4X the US.

edit: I wondered, and found that about 25% of US casualties were in the Pacific theater. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/Casualties/Casualtie...

What terrible goddam war. Anyway, it's not like the Brits hid in a hole while the Americans saved everyone. No snarky comments at imaginary cocktail parties, please.

> It paid 20X or so more in lives than the US or UK to win WWII

The USSR's plan was to invade the whole of Europe anyway (Stalin was preparing for it well before Operation Barbarossa started - you can look it up, they had the largest tank division in the world back in the 30s, well above Germany, and with much more powerful tanks that were obviously not going to be used for peaceful purposes).

So presenting them as "allied forces" has always felt amusing to me. They showed their true colors anyway right after Germany's defeat.

The "Icebreaker" theory has been thoroughly debunked. It has no support among credible historians. And yes, they were building up their military in the 30's. They would have been complete idiots not to.

Since we’re giving credit where it’s due, let’s not mix the USSR and Russia. Ukraine and Belarus suffered proportionately greater losses.

Sorry about that. Too late to edit. Replace Russia with USSR in my parent post.

>Since we’re giving credit where it’s due,

I thought this was going to be a joke about lend-lease!

Chinese deaths were quite large in number too, much more than American, French, British and German deaths, yet their role in conflict is seldom remembered.

That's very true, but in the context of the war in Europe - the current topic - that's not really relevant. China did not save Europe from the Nazis.

One could argue the price that the USSR paid had a lot to do with their lack of military prowess. They won by using their citizens as cannon fodder.

A great example is the Battle of Kursk. A defining moment when Germany lose as offensive capabilities in the East. It was a decisive win for the USSR, but the casualty numbers are astounding.

German loses - ~54,000 deaths USSR loses - ~180,000 deaths

USSR entered WWII on Hitler's side.

> It paid 20X or so more in lives

Took bad Stalin felt like he needed to match that count during his subsequent extermination of "political enemies."

"In “Europe A History,” British historian Norman Davies counted 50 million killed between 1924-53, excluding wartime casualties." [1]

Or doubled...

1: http://www.ibtimes.com/how-many-people-did-joseph-stalin-kil...

So then he exceeded his goal? Not sure that it made my previous statement any less true.. He still proceeded to kill a fuck load of citizens.

Oh no, I was agreeing with you!

"Is it true, in the last war, the only thing the Americans charged was the 10% on the money they lent us?", Corporal Jones.

"The American delegate is here? Late as usual"

Keep them coming...I love dragging up the old jokes

Reply on news.ycombinator.com