Why did Russia always lose so many man in war and why did their morale never break?

Sep 2016
457
Georgia
#61
In the Soviet propaganda was a number of fakes. For example, the story of 28 Panfilov soldiers who heroically threw themselves under German tanks with grenades in hands - it was a complete fabrication of war correspondents.
Movie about 28 Panfilov came out last year. Many were excited about it in Russia, if I remember.
 

caldrail

Ad Honorem
Feb 2012
5,096
#62
The OP is utter drivel. Russians always lost as many soldier as it was needed except the Second World War when Soviet general were used to using own soldiers as cannon fodder. Moreover Your notes about Borodino and the WWI are mendacious.
Cannon fodder? No, I doubt even the hard pressed generals thought like that. What is true is that at Stalingrad an order was given not to retreat and men were posted to shoot waverers, leading to a situation where unarmed men advanced until they could pick up the weapon of a fallen comrade. For us in the west it's hard to understand the nature of the Patriotic War. Russia was a communist country but most of its citizenry were perfectly happy with the way the country was run. Veterans recount how they were keen to fight back against the Germans. I recall Kramarenko's memoirs of learning to fly, where he skipped advanced lessons and went straight to an operational squadron to ask to serve (he was accepted because he lied about his flying experience).

Given the numbers taken prisoner during the early phases of Barbarossa it's clear that 'cannon fodder' is inappropriate. I do concede that the Russians had a different set of values, both military and human, but there is still some commonality and the desperation of leaders under pressure from invasion often leads to extreme measures and sometimes ridiculous orders. After all, part of the defence of France in 1944 was conducted by the Hitler Youth, the futile exercise of Hitler's military counters to Allied advances late in the war is infamous.

The Red Army had been a professional organisation until the purges of the thirties - I know some dispute the huge number of senior men executed for political reasons but veterans did confirm it - becoming a tool of the state until the situation in 1941 showed that a stronger army was required to hold and fight back against the Third Reich. Consequently the officer class were allowed to become professional again along with the re-opening of churches and other national moral initiatives.
 
Jul 2016
7,353
USA
#63
Simply: it is proved words Always and Never are synonyms and mean nothing in history. In this thread I only read few typical topics that do not stand up to the least scientific analysis . The "massive" Russian Army is from 20th Century (althought the famous "Russian Steamroller" is from 20th Century... well exactly from the late 19th Century and the French alliance... not at all before.. and not .... in 1792 - 1815.... French Army was the "massive"...not the Russian one.... and the "morale" not broken....they just broke in 1914 - 1918 (in a conflicth where Serbian, French, German, Austro-hungarian etc had higher level of casualties than Russian in relation to the population).. in 1904-1905... in Crimea...

I can list a dozen times the Japanese surrendered in WW2, along with pics, but that doesn't change the fact that they didn't typically do that

You are talking about "topics" and "typism".... again 1941-1945... Saipan, Eniwetok, Kwajelein, Iwo Jima etc... in fact, Japanese had hundreds thousands POWS in the last phase in War in Manchuria. Tarawa is truth... and Manchuria massive surrenders also is truth.

Just like I can show when Americans didn't rely on technology and abundance of supply and firepower, instead fighting tooth and nail with poor support while suffering great loss with no great discouragement. Neither of those is typically associated with those two nations

Exactly... typism for tourism! Not real.. whay you are talking about US... it is about the period AFTER 1941 Wars...In 1898.. the US Army had an awful armament (save the Gatlings). In 1917-1918... US was a great economic power, the greatest industrial and economic power on Earth.. but not a military power... not air force (their planes were French and British)...not even they had helmets.. most of them British! (and some French)...So what kind of "US" abundance of technology in WW1?

In 1941.. US Army was not a Great Militar Power... but yes.. the USA industrial power was able to built a great military force and from those days you can talk about the "technology and abundance of supply"... not at all in 1776, 1812, 1848, 1861, 1898, 1917...not even in 1941-early 1942. So the "typism" is reduced to 1942-1945, 1950-1953, Vietnam and the Gulf Wars.... only 70 years...

Nobody is speaking in absolutes, nobody is suggesting the Russians always had high morale along with high casualties.

From the moment the thread is named "
Why did Russia always lose so many man in war and why did their morale never break?

it is not possible any kind of interpretation...it is what is written... Always and Never.. synonimus mean nothing. The Russian morale was not different than the morale from any other place...and it is as false as to write a thread about "Why did Russia always surrender so massive?.. Each war is different... and myths are only myths to be used by some Hollywood lazy scripter... but it is not truth...Serbia was the country with higher casualties in 1914-1918 and they never surrendered (Yes Montenegro). In 1999.. however they surrendered. Each War is different and each attitude is related to the character of the war and the time in which it is fought (and the society) ... not with a "national character". About German offensive is other "typism": Dutch, Spanish, French, Swedish, Austrian, Russian, British, Danish, Turks etc etc they fought for centuries in German lands without the Germans could prevent it ... And the offensive... not at all in 1806... so you are talking about 1864 onwards. (After the defeat in the Marne...Germans mostly were deffensive positions in West Front in 1914-1918 save Verdun and the Spring Offensives).

I do not intend to undervalue anyone ... just put everything in context.
Topics, typist and tourism, seriously? At no point was anything I wrote philosophical enough to the point you needed to reply with meta jingoism.

My point is quite simple. Russians don't always fight hard and bloody, but they have done so enough in the past that it is part of their military reputation, both domestic and foreign. its part of their reputation, its part of the perception of them, and as anyone with have an ounce of common sense knows, perception is reality.

Every country, including your own, has such cultural reputations, perception, institutional norms, and part of them is based on some truth (or else they would not exist). Not all stereotypes are true, everyone knows that. But all stereotypes are founded on some truth, or else nobody accepts them.

In WW2, the Japanese were known to fight to the death enough times that them doing it was ingrained in their culture. And yet countless times they didn't. But proving they occasionally didn't doesn't prove it wasn't part of their military culture. Same with US and technology. Same with British and intense planning for set piece battles. Same for Russians taking voluntary losses while keeping morale high. Its not a fact every time, but all of these stereotypes are not only true, but are defining aspects of their respective military cultures.
 
Jul 2016
7,353
USA
#64
After all, part of the defence of France in 1944 was conducted by the Hitler Youth, the futile exercise of Hitler's military counters to Allied advances late in the war is infamous.
Who are you referring to here? One SS Panzer division involved in the battle of France was made up of former Hitler youth members who were all at least 17 years old, and led by veteran officers and NCOs. At no other time were actual Hitler Youth included in Army Group B or G's order of battle in France, they started being funneled into standard Volksgrenadier regiments after France was lost, with the youngest being pressed into service with the Luftwaffe (doing jobs that kids don't have issues doing), or serving as cannon fodder infantry in the Volkssturm from early 1945 to the war's end.
 

Pendennis

Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
3,379
Kirkcaldy, Scotland
#65
Harbinger--Winston Churchill's famed W.W. 2 statement that 'The Red Army tore the guts out of the German Wehrmacht...' -witness Stalingrad Kursk -the destruction in 1944 of the Nazi Army Group Centre and the victorious sweep into Germany in 1945 from the gates of Moscow in December 1941, gives lie to your scenario of the Russian/Soviet Union soldier as perpetual loser.
And if they were sad losers like you suggest then why did the USA and Western Europe and Canada form NATO in 1949?.-because the Red Army performance -culminating in Germany in 1945 scared the western leadership fartless even though they had the -A-bomb.
Never mind Brusilov-think Zhukov .-the true face of the Russian fighting man..
 
Nov 2015
1,474
Kyiv
#66
If we talk about the Japanese - almost all of WWII they fought hard and with fanaticism. When the Americans fought in Okinawa - and this is the first big Japanese island where the enemy came - then for 1 Japanese who surrendered there were 10 killed in battle.

And when the Russians attacked the Kwantung Army at the very end of the war, then for 1 Japanese killed in battle there were 10 who surrendered. So we can say that the resistance of the Japanese decreased 100 times

For all the Japanese then it was already clear that the war was finally lost. Moreover, they did not want to die for the Chinese land. And after two atomic bombs dropped by the Americans on Japan before the Russians began their offensive in the north of China, the Japanese authorities also lost the desire to defend the islands to the last Japanese.

Nevertheless, about 30 thousand Japanese soldiers and officers
have committed suicide when they were in captivity. There was not a single Japanese general among that ones
 
Sep 2016
457
Georgia
#67
Harbinger--Winston Churchill's famed W.W. 2 statement that 'The Red Army tore the guts out of the German Wehrmacht...' -witness Stalingrad Kursk -the destruction in 1944 of the Nazi Army Group Centre and the victorious sweep into Germany in 1945 from the gates of Moscow in December 1941, gives lie to your scenario of the Russian/Soviet Union soldier as perpetual loser.
And if they were sad losers like you suggest then why did the USA and Western Europe and Canada form NATO in 1949?.-because the Red Army performance -culminating in Germany in 1945 scared the western leadership fartless even though they had the -A-bomb.
Never mind Brusilov-think Zhukov .-the true face of the Russian fighting man..
None of them are as celebrated as Suvorov. Suvorov is not controversial as Zhukov and more famous and popular than Brusilov. Ask any Russian ,, who is the best general ? '' and majority of them will say Suvorov.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,876
Spain
#68
Topics, typist and tourism, seriously? At no point was anything I wrote philosophical enough to the point you needed to reply with meta jingoism.

My point is quite simple. Russians don't always fight hard and bloody, but they have done so enough in the past that it is part of their military reputation, both domestic and foreign. its part of their reputation, its part of the perception of them, and as anyone with have an ounce of common sense knows, perception is reality.

Every country, including your own, has such cultural reputations, perception, institutional norms, and part of them is based on some truth (or else they would not exist). Not all stereotypes are true, everyone knows that. But all stereotypes are founded on some truth, or else nobody accepts them.

In WW2, the Japanese were known to fight to the death enough times that them doing it was ingrained in their culture. And yet countless times they didn't. But proving they occasionally didn't doesn't prove it wasn't part of their military culture. Same with US and technology. Same with British and intense planning for set piece battles. Same for Russians taking voluntary losses while keeping morale high. Its not a fact every time, but all of these stereotypes are not only true, but are defining aspects of their respective military cultures.
No way... it is only Topics, typism and not serious at all. Russian Army was not massive army till 19th Century... in fact.. till late 19th Century... not massive at all in 1793 or in 1812. Stereotypes are not based at all in facts.. but only in propaganda, publicity and political manipulations.
USA technology? Where? In 1917? 1898? 1861? 1848? 1776? 1801?... not at all... but only After... 1941.
British intense planning... where? In Flanders in 1587? In Caribbean in 1655? Maybe in New Grenade in 1741? In River plate early 19th Century? In Crimea in 1854? Not.. intense planning begun in 1942... because the "intense" planning in Loss, Neuve Chapelle, Somme, Passchaendaele... it was not "intense" or if "intense" not enough for them...Was a very intense "planning" in Malaysia in 1942?.. Really we have differente conception about word "intense"... So you are talking about 1942 in El-Alameyn to 1945.. and you say: That is all the military history....WW2...No way!
 
Last edited:
Sep 2016
457
Georgia
#69
Despite all the talk about toughness, Russians can also be very big ,, cry-babies ''. They love to talk constantly about ,, Russophobia '' that was always in the West throughout history as they say and love to put the blame of their misfortunes on others and that such bad situations occurred in country, solely because of foreign influences. Now views about Anglo-Saxon conspiracies and hate of Russia become more and more popular. There is even famous historian in Russia - Starikov, who in his books tries to prove tha many misfortunes of Russia occurred because of English or Americans. Also many Russians don't understand that there were some nations that had it worse than them throughout history.

Also, a lot of Russians are racist. Now, few would actually say racist things in your face on the street, but behind your back and amongst each other they surely like to call names, make fun of those people and badmouth them. Many Russians use word ,,Черножопые '' to describe black population.

More and more Russians now also use word ,, либераст '' or ,, гейропейцы '' to describe Europeans. Liberal + Pederast = Liberast and Gay + Europe = Gayropeans.

Majority of Russians won't change their attitude towards Crimea, Ukraine and Europe, even if Putin and his friends die next morning. Don't be naïve about that. It's not evil Putin who brainwashed poor Russians. Majority of them legitimately approve his foreign policies and some even want more.
 
Last edited:

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,876
Spain
#70
Despite all the talk about toughness, Russians can also be very big ,, cry-babies ''. They love to talk constantly about ,, Russophobia '' that was always in the West throughout history as they say and love to put the blame of their misfortunes on others and that such bad situations occurred in country, solely because of foreign influences. Now views about Anglo-Saxon conspiracies and hate of Russia become more and more popular. There is even famous historian in Russia - Starikov, who in his books tries to prove tha many misfortunes of Russia occurred because of English or Americans. Also many Russians don't understand that there were some nations that had it worse than them throughout history.

Also, a lot of Russians are racist. Now, few would actually say racist things in your face on the street, but behind your back and amongst each other they surely like to call names, make fun of those people and badmouth them. Many Russians use word ,,Черножопые '' to describe black population.

More and more Russians now also use word ,, либераст '' or ,, гейропейцы '' to describe Europeans. Liberal + Pederast = Liberast and Gay + Europe = Gayropeans.

Majority of Russians won't change their attitude towards Crimea, Ukraine and Europe, even if Putin and his friends die next morning. Don't be naïve about that. It's not evil Putin who brainwashed poor Russians. Majority of them legitimately approve his foreign policies and some even want more.

When I studied russian (many years ago" Pederast meant Homosexual...and yes, I agree with You. Our dear Aggination maybe can´t believe.. but yes.. Russian crying... I am a witnessed about that... by the way... I remember a party in Georgia near Russian border... with few Georgian officers drinking Vodka into a horn... dear Gvelion... I give faith and certify i never saw nobody drink more Vodka than those Georgian officers! ( I didn´t drink much... I "invented" I was stomach-ill)..
 
Likes: Gvelion