Started By
Message
locked post

The Top 10 Bloodiest Battles of the Second World War

Posted on 3/8/23 at 5:21 pm
Posted by RollTide1987
Baltimore, MD
Member since Nov 2009
71146 posts
Posted on 3/8/23 at 5:21 pm
A sequel to yesterday's thread which highlighted the ten bloodiest battles of the First World War, this thread will countdown the Top 10 deadliest battles of the Second World War. Once again, we will be dealing with total combined casualties (killed, wounded, captured/missing) and will also be including civilian casualties as they oftentimes were just as involved in engagements as their military counterparts were.

The Second World War was the deadliest conflict in human history, killing between 60-80 million people over the course of six years of warfare. While the traditional start date for the Second World War is listed as September 1, 1939, it must be mentioned that the Second Sino-Japanese War (begun on July 7, 1937) would eventually merge into World War II when Japan attacked British and American interests in the Pacific in December 1941. With that being said, the years 1937 and 1938 will also be included in this thread as part of the Second World War.

Spoiler alert: nine of the 10 battles on this list were fought on the Eastern Front. With that said, expect a list of the Top 10 Bloodiest (non-Eastern Front) Battles of the Second World War to appear in the near future.

Now...onto the countdown:


10. Ichi-Go Offensive (April 19-December 31, 1944) - 850,000 total casualties

This Japanese offensive, waged in mainland China, which began in the spring and lasted through the winter of 1944 ended in a smashing victory for Japan over the Nationalist forces of Chiang Kai-shek.

9. First Battle of Smolensk (July 8-September 10, 1941) - 895,633 total casualties

In the early days of Operation Barbarossa, German forces under Fedor von Bock stopped an attempted counterattack by the Red Army which led to the German capture of the vital city of Smolensk.

8. Battle of Berlin (April 16-May 2, 1945) - 1,183,367 total casualties

The final battle of World War II in Europe resulted in the suicide of Adolf Hitler, the surrender of the Wehrmacht and the collapse of Nazi Germany.

7. Battle of Kursk (July 5-August 23, 1943) - 1,206,464 total casualties

Adolf Hitler's last ditch gamble to reverse his losses in the East and bring the Soviet Union to the negotiating table ended with a decisive Red Army victory and the largest tank battle in military history.

6. Byelorussian Offensive (June 22-August 19, 1944) - 1,220,888 total casualties

Josef Stalin's massive offensive meant to support the Allied landings in Normandy broke the German armed forces' back on the Eastern Front. Losses in men and material were unrecoverable on the side of Nazi Germany.

5. Battle of Moscow (September 30, 1941-January 7, 1942) - 1,354,234 total casualties

The German Army's drive on Moscow is stopped just miles short of the gates of Moscow and pushed back by a massive Soviet counteroffensive. Prior to the Soviet attack, advanced German units could easily see the spires of Moscow through their binoculars.

4. Dnieper-Carpathian Offensive (December 24, 1943-May 6, 1944) - 1,489,216 total casualties

After driving German forces from the east bank of the Dnieper River, the Red Army launched an offensive to drive the Wehrmacht away from the western bank of the river and into the Carpathian Mountains that lie on the border with Ukraine and Hungary.

3. Battle of Stalingrad (August 23, 1942-February 2, 1943) - 1,997,993 total casualties

Characterized by bloody house-to-house and street-by-street fighting, this battle in the city along the Volga River went on to become the turning point of the Second World War on the Eastern Front. The German 6th Army, the Romanian 3rd and 4th armies, the Italian Army of Russia, and the Hungarian 3rd Army were all wiped off the map.

2. Battle of the Dnieper (August 26-December 23, 1943) - 2,049,058 total casualties

In this series of battles along the Dnieper River, the Red Army regained control of the entirety of the east bank of that river as well as the recapture of Kiev and the Donets Basin.

1. Siege of Leningrad (September 8, 1941-January 27, 1944) - 4,016,051 total casualties

In a siege which claimed north of four million military and civilian casualties, Leningrad held out against constant German bombardment and infantry assaults for some 900 straight days. Over 800,000 of these casualties were civilian deaths due to starvation. Another 200,000 were killed by air and artillery bombardments.
This post was edited on 3/8/23 at 5:22 pm
Posted by OldmanBeasley
Charlotte
Member since Jun 2014
11173 posts
Posted on 3/8/23 at 5:23 pm to
You never want to end up on the Eastern Front.
This post was edited on 3/8/23 at 5:23 pm
Posted by Ghost of Colby
Alberta, overlooking B.C.
Member since Jan 2009
15655 posts
Posted on 3/8/23 at 5:26 pm to
America involved in zero. That’s how bad WWII was on certain fronts.
Posted by IAmNERD
Member since May 2017
24238 posts
Posted on 3/8/23 at 5:30 pm to
quote:

America involved in zero. That’s how bad WWII was on certain fronts

Eastern front was a totally different beast.

American politicians and public would have NEVER put up with the type of numbers the Germans and Soviets ran up in the east.
Posted by WestCoastAg
Member since Oct 2012
150135 posts
Posted on 3/8/23 at 5:33 pm to
Im willing to bet some of our battles in the pacific had a casualty per square foot or casualty per combatant number that would rival, if not surpass, some of the major eastern front engagements
Posted by kciDAtaE
Member since Apr 2017
17602 posts
Posted on 3/8/23 at 5:47 pm to
quote:

You never want to end up on the Eastern Front.


Posted by tide06
Member since Oct 2011
23304 posts
Posted on 3/8/23 at 5:47 pm to
You hear so much about the horrors of Stalingrad but Leningrad had 2x the casualties. 4M people wounded or dead in a single battle.

The eastern front is something most westerners can't even fathom.

Major battles in the west would've been skirmishes in the east.
Posted by kciDAtaE
Member since Apr 2017
17602 posts
Posted on 3/8/23 at 5:53 pm to
quote:

RollTide1987


Despite the well deserved hatred of you due to your screen name, I must acknowledge your efforts in putting these threads together.

They aren’t the most sexy OT threads and usually fizzle out in short order. But I enjoy them and appreciate your work.

Military history is fascinating to me. Learning how quickly the death toll increased in the European battles from Napoleon through WWII is mind boggling.

Ever think of posting comparisons of major battles through time?
Posted by doc baklava
Between heaven and hell
Member since Oct 2020
1081 posts
Posted on 3/8/23 at 6:00 pm to
I think the Pacific is just as bad. Add heat, humidity, disease, and the bad luck of getting captured by the Japanese
Posted by fool_on_the_hill
Member since Jan 2019
544 posts
Posted on 3/8/23 at 6:35 pm to
one of those is not like the other one of those thing just doesnt belong
Posted by Nodust
Member since Aug 2010
22802 posts
Posted on 3/8/23 at 6:53 pm to
I can't comprehend those numbers.
Posted by IAmNERD
Member since May 2017
24238 posts
Posted on 3/8/23 at 7:05 pm to
quote:

You hear so much about the horrors of Stalingrad but Leningrad had 2x the casualties. 4M people wounded or dead in a single battle.

Well, Leningrad also lasted a hell of a lot longer than Stalingrad. It was from fall of '41 to January or February of '44. While Stalingrad was like 6 months.
Posted by Oilfieldbiology
Member since Nov 2016
42270 posts
Posted on 3/8/23 at 7:21 pm to
quote:

and will also be including civilian casualties as they oftentimes were just as involved in engagements as their military counterparts were.


Did we do this for the First World War?
Posted by Reubaltaich
A nation under duress
Member since Jun 2006
5545 posts
Posted on 3/8/23 at 7:24 pm to
The Russian casualties in WWII are staggering.

I did a quick Internet search which showed over 27 million casualties for the Russians, which is combined number of the civilian and military population.

Untold millions of Russians died of starvation and disease.

Germany sustained appalling casualties as well. Over 14 million, combined civilian & military, casualties.

The losses of France and the UK pale in comparison to the losses of just Germany and Russia.



Posted by Oilfieldbiology
Member since Nov 2016
42270 posts
Posted on 3/8/23 at 7:26 pm to
quote:

You hear so much about the horrors of Stalingrad but Leningrad had 2x the casualties. 4M people wounded or dead in a single battle. The eastern front is something most westerners can't even fathom. Major battles in the west would've been skirmishes in the east.


3M military casualties alone according to the OP. Holy frick.

To put Leningrad into perspective, the entire state of Louisiana is 4.5 M people.
Posted by IAmNERD
Member since May 2017
24238 posts
Posted on 3/8/23 at 7:32 pm to
quote:

I did a quick Internet search which showed over 27 million casualties for the Russians, which is combined number of the civilian and military population.

quote:

Germany sustained appalling casualties as well. Over 14 million, combined civilian & military, casualties.

Lots of people don't realize that China is squarely in between the Soviets and Germans in total people lost in WW2. I know I didn't until several years ago when I started reading heavily about the war. Most estimates put the Chinese losses between 15 and 20 million. Japan did a number on them before they turned their attention to us.
Posted by Oilfieldbiology
Member since Nov 2016
42270 posts
Posted on 3/8/23 at 7:32 pm to
quote:

The Russian casualties in WWII are staggering. I did a quick Internet search which showed over 27 million casualties for the Russians, which is combined number of the civilian and military population. Untold millions of Russians died of starvation and disease. Germany sustained appalling casualties as well. Over 14 million, combined civilian & military, casualties. The losses of France and the UK pale in comparison to the losses of just Germany and Russia.


American high schools do an absolutely appalling job of teaching history. It’s nothing but names and dates, very little impact of actions and events.

When we covered WWII in American history, we barely even touched on the fricking pacific theater. We focused on D Day and the European battles a little bit and then jumped straight into civil rights. I swear I’ve learned more about ancient and American history through listening to hardcore history and the revolutions podcast, hearing something, and researching it than all of my time in high school.
Posted by Oilfieldbiology
Member since Nov 2016
42270 posts
Posted on 3/8/23 at 7:33 pm to
quote:

Lots of people don't realize that China is squarely in between the Soviets and Germans in total people lost in WW2. I know I didn't until several years ago when I started reading heavily about the war. Most estimates put the Chinese losses between 15 and 20 million. Japan did a number on them before they turned their attention to us.

I didn’t know this until you just said it

Asian land wars are fricking horrifying. There are just so many damned people that casualties don’t matter. There is always a replacement.
This post was edited on 3/8/23 at 7:34 pm
Posted by IAmNERD
Member since May 2017
24238 posts
Posted on 3/8/23 at 7:39 pm to
quote:

Asian land wars are fricking horrifying. There are just so many damned people that casualties don’t matter. There is always a replacement

The number of people and the eastern culture. Like I said in my first post, western nations wouldn't come close to those kinds of numbers before the populace started revolting. We just can't fathom those kinds of human losses.

It's one reason why I'm not sure, even with our tech advantages, if we were sucked in to a true total war with a nation like China that we would win. We just would not (and never have) put up with the losses like they would (and have in the past).
Posted by vilma4prez
Lafayette, LA
Member since Jan 2009
6675 posts
Posted on 3/8/23 at 7:42 pm to
These casualties are from mostly defending their homeland. On all sides.

We are lucky to never have gotten to that point.

27 million Russians dead. That is a crazy number. They have "only" lost 150,000 in this war in Ukraine.


first pageprev pagePage 1 of 5Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram