Commissars

[PresterJohn]

As I said multiple times, it is a fundamental aspect of the war in the east that there are no reliable numbers, just the estimates of those professional historians (yes I know - they're irrelevant!) who have done research in that area. Military casualties on the Russian Front are fairly well understood at the large scale, but civilian casualties are vague, and I don't doubt there can be a lot of uncertainty for some about which side of the line they should be tallied on (left to die by Nazis or Soviets). Some people have written books on how Stalin was a bigger killer of civilians than Hitler (the time in charge being a factor) and I haven't read them (and I'm sure those authors are irrelevant too). That's a slightly different argument to killing your own people though.

 

[Jazz]

WTF are you people arguing about? Huh? Stalin might well have killed more Soviet citizens than Hitler killed Jews. He didn't start the war with Germany which killed somewhere between 15 to 30 million Soviet citizens, approximately half of which were civilians. Nobody really knows for sure as record keeping really isn't a strong suit for the type of agrarian society that wuz the Soviet Union going into WWII.

Again, WTF are you people arguing about?

 

[Robin Reeve]

<shrug> I am not arguing about anything.
I just asked a question about a statement.
WTF are you complaining about a thread hijack, while you so often do it yourself?

 

[Jazz]

<shrug> I am not arguing about anything.
I just asked a question about a statement.
WTF are you complaining about a thread hijack, while you so often do it yourself?

It's a hijack of a hijack....nested hijacks if you will....

It's not the thread hijack that bothers me. It's the topic hijack that bothers me. These jokers are haggling about how many dead people we can blame on Stalin vs Hitler. Getting close to personal history.

<shrug>

Hell, I wuzn't even following the thread....

 

[Psycho]

how would you like it if Hitler killed you? or Stalin?

 

[King Scott]

how would you like it if Hitler killed you? or Stalin?

How would you like it if Hitler and Stalin had to fight to the death in a cage match?!?!

Semper Fi!
Scott

 

[kcole4001]

how would you like it if Hitler killed you? or Stalin?

I'll be your jailer tonight, sir.
Would you prefer stabbing or beating?

How would you like it if Hitler and Stalin had to fight to the death in a cage match?!?!

Semper Fi!
Scott

How about a cage match between Hitler, Stalin and a particularly hungry tiger?

 

[King Scott]

How about a cage match between Hitler, Stalin and a particularly hungry tiger?

Now you've gone too far...what has the poor tiger ever done wrong to have to be associated with the likes of these two?

Monty Python Tiger

Semer Fi!
Scott

 

[PresterJohn]

WTF are you people arguing about? Huh? Stalin might well have killed more Soviet citizens than Hitler killed Jews. He didn't start the war with Germany which killed somewhere between 15 to 30 million Soviet citizens, approximately half of which were civilians. Nobody really knows for sure as record keeping really isn't a strong suit for the type of agrarian society that wuz the Soviet Union going into WWII.

Again, WTF are you people arguing about?

Given that the impossible requirement for precise numbers was an error, not much. Many Russians died. Commissars helped.
(Mind you it is absolutely absurd to simply decry as "irrelevant" the work of professional historians such as Glantz when it comes to the history of the Russian Front in WW2.)

 

[Michael R]

Moderator asks: please be civil. I feel like this has gotten off of the topic of commissars.

 

[von Marwitz]

The Russians killed more of their own than the Nazis did.

I doubt that.

I can very much recommend the following highly acclaimed book on the matter which I have read on the subject just three weeks ago:

"Bloodlands" by Timothy Snyder.

It focuses on the numbers of victims that died due to intentional measures not on the battlefields in the area he defines as the "Bloodlands" (i.e. territories that at some point between 1933 and 1945 were under German and Soviet Army- and police-control).

Of course, "precise" numbers cannot be specified, but well founded approximations are possible.

It is also important to be a bit more precise about definitions:
I assume, the argument is rather about the "Soviets" instead of the "Russians" to begin with.

To excerpt and translate (I read the German translation) the nucleus of the book for the purposes of the forum is beyond the time I can invest right here.
But again, to anyone interested in the topic, the quoted book is the best one I have read on it so far.

von Marwitz

 

[Vinnie]

It is certainly argueable that in terms of sheer numbers of military deaths, the incompetance of the Soviets killed more than the Nazi's did. But to balance that you have to consider if these deaths would have occured without the war at all. Do you lay the blame for the freezing to death or starving of the soldiers in the field on the command whom put them there without support or on the aggressor who caused them to be put there?

 

[Wayne]

[See also Wikipedia Democide and Holodomor]

 

[bendizoid]

In one of my games vs Gor-Gor my commissar shot 9/11 times. The scenario was ‘Fields of Black Gold’ (with Mattius watching) and that commissar shot way more Russians than the Germans did.
One man’s death is a tragedy but a million deaths is a statistic.

 

[von Marwitz]

In one of my games vs Gor-Gor my commissar shot 9/11 times. The scenario was ‘Fields of Black Gold’ (with Mattius watching) and that commissar shot way more Russians than the Germans did.

Nice scenario.

One man’s death is a tragedy but a million deaths are a statistic.

No! I wholeheartedly disagree. A million deaths is a million tragedies.

The depressing thing is that many see a million deaths as a statistic and the individual fates are eclipsed by a mere number.

von Marwitz

 

[bendizoid]

Nice scenario.



No! I wholeheartedly disagree. A million deaths is a million tragedies.

The depressing thing is that many see a million deaths as a statistic and the individual fates are eclipsed by a mere number.

von Marwitz

Stalin said that, not me

 

[PresterJohn]

It is certainly argueable that in terms of sheer numbers of military deaths, the incompetance of the Soviets killed more than the Nazi's did. But to balance that you have to consider if these deaths would have occured without the war at all. Do you lay the blame for the freezing to death or starving of the soldiers in the field on the command whom put them there without support or on the aggressor who caused them to be put there?

The military casualties are fairly well understood with about eight million dead for the Red Army (but some researchers have higher numbers). There is a certain amount of military bureaucracy associated with counting soldiers and there are enough of those records to arrive at reasonable numbers. The civilian deaths on the other hand are very vague in so far as you don't have good census data to start with. Then there are vague records of how many civilians just were not there at the end of the war. How many fled, or died in the process of fleeing due to lack of any assistance. The fact that many civilians died is not disputed but attributing responsibility is difficult.

 

[Jazz]

The fact that many civilians died is not disputed but attributing responsibility is difficult.

And just why the f*ck does that matter?

 

[PresterJohn]

I doubt that.

I can very much recommend the following highly acclaimed book on the matter which I have read on the subject just three weeks ago:

"Bloodlands" by Timothy Snyder.

It focuses on the numbers of victims that died due to intentional measures not on the battlefields in the area he defines as the "Bloodlands" (i.e. territories that at some point between 1933 and 1945 were under German and Soviet Army- and police-control).

Of course, "precise" numbers cannot be specified, but well founded approximations are possible.

It is also important to be a bit more precise about definitions:
I assume, the argument is rather about the "Soviets" instead of the "Russians" to begin with.

To excerpt and translate (I read the German translation) the nucleus of the book for the purposes of the forum is beyond the time I can invest right here.
But again, to anyone interested in the topic, the quoted book is the best one I have read on it so far.

von Marwitz

If I understand correctly from a precis of Bloodlands, is that during the war in central and east Europe Hitler caused more (twice as many) civilian deaths than Stalin, with a total of 14 million between them. However Hitler was killing his own (and what passed for allied) civilians in that number, as well as the Poles who were not "Russian", but were also killed by "Russians". Some six million Polish casualties in total with uncertainly about attribution for some of those.

Given that total war losses for the Russians/Soviets (I have tended to use the ASL description of Soviets/eastern Allies as "Russians") may have been 25-30 million then there is a sizable gap there.

 

[PresterJohn]

And just why the f*ck does that matter?

As has been mentioned above, professional historians have tried to make sense of the numbers and arrive at conclusions on the roles of key characters like Hitler and Stalin. In Bloodlands for example, the total has been attributed with twice as many civilians deaths being due to the actions of the Hitler regime in Nazi Germany, than to that of Stalin.

Perhaps you think the work of professional historians is irrelevant, but there are those who accept that their work is valid and has consequences for the modern world.