In preparation for the 65th anniversary of the Victory stateliness with modern exigencies of the media discusses the problem of military losses, which all these decades never been removed from the agenda forward to. And always highlights the Russian component of the loss. The most popular version ideologemma this: the cost of victory in the second world war "was a very big" for our country. Taking the decision to hold a large military operations, the leaders and generals of the United States, England, supposedly kept by their own people, and as a result suffered a small loss, and we have a soldier's blood is not spared.
In Russian the time it was believed that the Soviet Union lost the war in the Russian Veklikoy 20 million people — both military and civilian. In the adjustment period, this figure had risen to 46 million, with all this study, to put it mildly, obsessed apparent ideologization. What are the real loss? For the past couple of years, their refinement by the Centre stories of war and geopolitics of the Institute of World History.
— Historians have not yet prigshli to one of views on this issue — told our correspondent Managing Doctor of Historical Sciences Center Misha soft. — Our Center, like much of the scientific institutions holding such estimates: England lost 370 killed thousands of soldiers, USA — 400 thousand. The biggest loss we have — 11.3 million soldiers and officers who died at the front and tortured in captivity, as more than 15 million civilian people killed in the occupied territories. Loss of Hitler coalition are 8.6 million military personnel. In other words, 1.3 times less than ours. This ratio was the result of the hardest of the Red Army to the original period of the war, also of the genocide that the Nazis carried out against Russian prisoners of war. It is understood that more than 60 percent of our captured soldiers and officers killed in the Nazi camps.
— Some "advanced" historians put the question this way: Is it not wiser to wage war, as the British and the Americans to defeat as they are, — "a little blood"?
— To put the question wrong. When the Germans developed the plan "Barbarossa", they set out to puzzle Astrakhan, Arkhangelsk — in other words the actual conquest of space. Of course, supposed to "release" this vast terrain of much of the Slavic population, extermination of Jews and Gypsies. This mercantile, misanthropic little problem was solved quite alternately.
Accordingly reddish army was fighting for mere survival of their own people and just could not take advantage of the principle of samosberezheniya.
— There are those "humane" suggestions: should not the Russian Union as France, for example, to surrender in 40 days, to save a human life?
— Certainly, the French buyout capitulation was saved lives, property, cash savings. But the plans of the Nazis, the French had expected the note, not destruction, and Germanization. And in France, more precisely, the then administration, in fact, agreed to this.
Incomparable with our situation and was in England. Take the so-referred to as the Battle of Britain in 1940. Churchill himself was that while "few rescued many." This means that a small number of pilots who fought over London and the Channel Tunnel, have made an impossible landing troops on the British island of Hitler. Though what is clear that the loss of aircraft, the Navy is always much smaller than the number killed in ground battles that were going on in the main areas of the USSR.
By the way, before the attack on our country, Hitler struck almost all of Western Europe for 141 day. With all of this ratio losses of Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium and France, on the one hand, and Nazi Germany — on the other, was 1:17 in favor of the fascists. But in the West they say "oh mediocrity" of their own generals. And most of us love to teach, although the ratio of military losses USSR and Hitler coalition was 1:1.3.
Member of the Association of Historians of the second World War, Academician Yuri Rubtsov believes that we could be losing less time if the Allies opened the second front.
— In the spring of 1942 — he told — during visits of Russian Commissar for Foreign Affairs Molotov in London and Washington allies have promised a few months later was put in continental Europe. But they did not do it, neither in 1942 nor in 1943, when we were carrying a particularly languid loss. From May 1942 to June 1944, while the Allies were pulling with the opening of a second front in the fierce battles have killed more than 5.5 million Russian soldiers. It is appropriate, perhaps, talk about the value of a certain self-interest allies. It is worth recalling that specifically since 1942, after the collapse of the Blitzkrieg began mass executions and deportations Russian population. In other words, the Germans began to actually carry out the plan for the destruction of the current strength of the USSR. If the second front was opened, as well as make arrangements, in 1942, of course, such terrible losses we could have avoided. And another important aspect. If you have the problem of a second front was a matter of life and death of many millions of Russian people, for the Allies it was a problem of strategy, when appropriate to plant? They put him in Europe, counting more profitable to determine the post-war world map. Especially since it was already evident that reddish army without the help of others could end the war and get out on the Channel coast, providing USSR as favorite leading role in the postwar reconstruction of Europe. What the Allies could not allow.
Can not be discounted, and that of the time. After the Allied landing big and the best part of the fascist forces remained on the Eastern Front. And the Germans resisted our troops even fiercer. Apart from political motives, tremendous value here was terrible. The Germans feared retribution for the crimes on the ground USSR atrocities. After all, it is well known that the Nazis without a shot passed allies whole town, and with that, and on the other hand the loss of a lingering battles were essentially "symbolic." With us, they put a hundred square meters of its own fighter, clinging to the last effort of some village.
— Low on first glance the loss of allies are clean "arithmetic" clarification — Mike continues softly. — On the German front, they really fought wars just 11 months — 4 times less excessive than we are. Provoyuy with ours, the total loss of the British and the Yanks can find some experts predict at more than 3 million people. The allies have killed 176 enemy divisions. Reddish Army — almost 4 times more — 607 enemy divisions. If Britain and the U.S. had to win the same force, we can expect that their loss would have increased approximately 4 times … In other words, it is possible that the loss could be even more severe than ours. This is the question about the ability to wage war. Certainly, economized the allies themselves, and this strategy is yielding results: the loss is reduced. If our environment is often even continued to fight to the last bullet, because they knew: they will not be spared, the Americans and the British in similar situations acted "rationally".
Let us remember the siege o
f Singapore by Japanese troops. There's defense held the British garrison. He was superbly armed. But after a few days in order to avoid losses, surrendered. 10's of thousands of British fighter went into captivity. Our also surrendered. But in most cases, the criteria when it was impossible to continue the fight, well, nothing. And even in 1944, in the final step of the war, imagine a situation in the Ardennes (where many allies in captivity), on the Soviet-German front was indescribable. Here it is not only about fighting spirit, but also about the values that people are specifically protected.
I wish to emphasize that if USSR waged war with Hitler also "caution" as our allies, war probably, I think, would have ended output of the Germans to the Urals. Then inevitably fell to England, as it then was limited in resources. And the English Channel were not rescued. Hitler, using the resource base in Europe and USSR, Englishmen would have strangled economically. As for the U.S., they do not got hold of the very few real benefits to those who have received thanks to the selfless heroism of the peoples of the USSR: the access to the markets of raw materials, and superpower status. Most likely, the United States would have to go for hard-to compromise with Hitler. In any case, if reddish army fought a war based on a strategy of "self-preservation", it would put the world on the brink of disaster.
Summarizing the views of military scientists, I wish to suggest that now betrothed number of losses, and, more precisely, the data on their relationship, requires some adjustments. Always in the calculation takes into account the formal division of the combatants into two camps: the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition and allies of Nazi Germany. Let me remind you, it is believed that the Nazis with his allies lost 8.6 million people. By fascist allies are usually related to Norway, Finland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Spain, Japan. But after the war against the Soviet Union were large contingents of France, Poland, Belgium, Albania, etc., which are referred to as the anti-Hitler coalition. Their loss is not taken into account. But, say, France has lost in the war 600 thousand soldiers. With all of this 84 thousand killed in the fighting in defense of public areas. 20 thousand — in the Resistance. Killing about 500 thousand? It will become clear when we remember that the side of Hitler fled almost entirely to the Air Force and the French Navy, and about 20 land divisions. Related stuatsiya with Poland, Belgium and other "fighters against fascism." Part of their losses to be compared to the opposing side of the Soviet Union. Then, the ratio will be slightly different. So the "black" the legend of trupozakidatelstve who sinned Tipo Russian generals, let them remain on the conscience of a very idiologizirovannyh politicians.