Friends, a May 9 thread about the scale of Soviet losses in World War Two.
You cannot understand why Victory Day is the most significant secular holiday in Russia without getting a sense of just how much the Soviet Union lost in the Nazi-Soviet War. (1/N)
The Nazi-Soviet War was the single largest land war ever fought. My great grandfather served in the American army and was a lieutenant on Omaha Beach, so I would never minimize the bravery of Americans in this war. However, the focal point of the war was the east. (2/N)
Roughly 80% of Nazi Germany's casualties were suffered in the clash with the Red Army. The Soviet Union was where the Wehrmacht was attrited and eventually destroyed. This was an enormous, world-historical feat by the Soviet people, but it came at a horrific cost. (3/N)
The Red Army defeated the Wehrmacht in two phases of war. In the first phase, Germany had operational initiative and the USSR waged a desperate defense. In the second phase, the Red Army went on the offensive and destroyed the atrophied Wehrmacht. (4/N)
During the defensive phase, the hinge factor was the USSR's ability to mobilize huge numbers of trained reservists and deploy fresh units. Between June and December 1941, the Soviets mobilized 14 million reservists - 5 million just by the end of June. (5/N)
German intelligence estimated that the Red Army could raise and deploy 40 fresh divisions in response to Barbarossa. The actual number? About 800. One of the great intelligence misfires of all time. This is why Germany lost. (6/N)
It is difficult to get our minds around the scale of this war. By the war's end, approximately 35 million men had served in the Red Army in some capacity. Battlefield casualties were correspondingly horrific. (7/N)
Getting a precise number of Red Army casualties is impossible, but the best estimates are that the Soviets lost something like 10 million men killed or missing, including 3 million who were deliberately starved in POW camps. In addition, some 18 million were wounded. (8/N)
Civilian casualties were even more significant. The Germans waged a brutal, animalistic war. Soviet Jews were shot into open air pits. 1 million people starved to death in Leningrad. In all, around 15 million Soviet civilians were killed. (9/N)
When Red Army combat deaths are added to the civilian death toll, we get total Soviet losses of about 25 million people. The USSR's prewar population was 200 million.
One in eight Soviet citizens was killed in a four year span. (10/N)
The physical destruction of the country was similarly cataclysmic. About 1,700 towns and cities were completely destroyed, to go with 70,000 villages (that number is not a typo). Major cities that fell under German occupation were devastated. (11/N)
In Minsk, for example, 80% of the city's buildings were completely destroyed by the end of the war. Only 19 out of 332 major factories in the city survived. By one famous estimate, the war destroyed one third of the Soviet Union's wealth. (12/N)
It is obvious why the Great Patriotic War is now a focal point of Russian national consciousness. It was quite literally the greatest tragedy ever to befall the nation, while also being the greatest triumph. A duality of victory and devastation. (13/N)
With so much death, dislocation, and physical devastation, this war touched every single Soviet citizen in some way. It was a universal phenomenon; nobody was remote from conflict. Everybody lost a son, a brother, a father, an uncle, a cousin, a friend, a home. (14/N)
The Russian people cannot and will not forget this. The Soviet people achieved the iconic victory of the ages: the deflection and then the destruction of the Nazi war machine. But it cost them oceans of blood. (15/N)
Coda: “The German invaders want a war of extermination against the peoples of the Soviet Union. Very well then! If they want a war of extermination they shall have it!”
~ Stalin, November 7, 1941
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is a slop post, but there's a broader problem with the way people try to score cheap points by pointing out things like the life expectancy issue, the HIV rate, alcoholism, etc. These issues are very telling as to why Russians feel the way they do about Putin and the USSR.
Westerners broadly misunderstand how the collapse of the USSR was experienced in places like Russia and Ukraine. The implosion of the Soviet economy was not a pleasant experience in any way, and the country did not make a clean transition, either politically or economically.
All the generally understood problems with the Soviet planned economy were true. Soviet central planning was more wasteful, less dynamic, less innovative, and created less wealth than western market economies. All that being said, the system largely "worked."
Very blackpilling when you learn that Viking Berserkers didn’t really exist in the sense that people generally think. I wish they did, but they didn’t.
"Berserk" as a word comes from "Serk", which meant shirt, with either "bear" or "bare" attached to it, giving the image of either a warrior with ursine regalia or else unarmored, possibly even naked.
Carl von Clausewitz is among the most widely known and cited (if not widely read) theorists of war. His signature work, "On War" (published in 1832) is the source of many commonplace expressions and terms that permiate the modern lexicon. (1)
Clausewitz was the originator of concepts like "friction", "culmination", "the fog of war", and more. His comment that "war is the continuation of policy with other means" has been endlessly quoted. Like a Shakespeare, he undergirds much of our modern vocabulary of war. (2)
Clausewitz is widely known, but perhaps not so widely read. Despite its influence, "On War" is an opaque and disorderly text. This is largely because Clausewitz died while his writing was still in an unorganized draft. The published volume was edited by his wife, Marie. (3)
This December 18th marks the 108th anniversary of the end of the Battle of Verdun - an infamously bloody episode of the First World War which killed over 700,000 French and German troops over nearly ten months of fighting. (1)
Verdun in many ways was the seminal First World War battle, in that it churned up dozens of divisions fighting for apparently meager gains of just a few kilometers. It appears at first brush to be entirely senseless, but the strategic conception deserves close scrutiny. (2)
By the end of 1915, German hopes for a quick resolution to the war had been firmly dashed. The initial command cadre had been replaced, and General Erich von Falkenhayn had taken command of the German general staff with an unenviable strategic position. (3)
Robert Drews book on the Bronze Age Collapse is one of my absolute favorites, and it's one that I find myself thinking about a lot with the advent of cheap FPV drones as a military expedient, as seen in Ukraine. (1)
Drews basic argument is that the collapse of rich and stable late bronze age societies was due to the advent of new technical and tactical methodologies which made the aristocratic chariot armies of the day obsolete. (2)
Warfare in the bronze age centered on armies comprised principally of chariots deployed as mobile archery platforms, with infantry playing a subordinate role as auxiliaries and security troops. (3)
Maybe instead of arguing online about Columbus/Indigenous Peoples Day, you read this excellent book? This dismisses the myth of the helpless native and presents a coherent story of the European encounter with North America.
The key theme here is that Europeans didn’t encounter a virginal land occupied by naïve peoples. North America already had a scheme of geopolitics, with diplomatic protocols, alliance systems, and warfare.
Native Americans by and large did not see Europeans as alien intruders, but as a new chess piece in this power system. Europeans were integrated into the diplomatic web, and native tribes tried to leverage them against each other.