- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Top 10 Bloodiest Battles of the Second World War
Posted on 3/9/23 at 9:48 am to RollTide1987
Posted on 3/9/23 at 9:48 am to RollTide1987
quote:Everything is relative, which is what this thread is about. 21K Americans is of course horrific, but still truly pales in comparison to many other battles on the eastern front.
I wouldn't call a battle which saw almost 800,000 total casualties (including the dead bodies of nearly 21,000 Americans) "clean-up work." It was a legitimately brutal battle waged from the very moment those ramps went down on the landing craft on June 6 to the moment the Germans in the Falaise pocket surrendered to the Allies on August 21.
1
Posted on 3/9/23 at 9:52 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
I'd say the average boomer thinks D-Day was the biggest event in WWII
For the West it was the biggest event of the Second World War.
The war for the Western Allies had been building up to that moment since before the United States had even entered the conflict. For the average American, Briton, Canadian, Australian, New Zealander, and Frenchman of that generation....June 6, 1944, was THE day of days. And since the Cold War began right after the war ended, and lasted for the next 50+ years, that is how it was taught to the Boomers and the Gen Xers.
Posted on 3/9/23 at 9:54 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
21K Americans is of course horrific, but still truly pales in comparison to many other battles on the eastern front.
As I am the one who made this list, I know this to be true. However, the Battle of Normandy was still one of the largest and bloodiest battles of the Second World War. Had I expanded my OP to include the Top 15 battles in terms of overall casualties, it would have made the list.
This post was edited on 3/9/23 at 9:55 am
Posted on 3/9/23 at 9:55 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
You are right, I overstated the ranks. But the landings are what is taught the most (at least when I was in school). I was shocked over the years to find out more real facts than just pure rah rah ism. The eastern front was scarcely taught at all.
School history classes are a joke and should be considered as being at best a brief introduction to history. They barely skim the surface of any given historic event. I literally slept through high school history daily and finished each year with no lower of an average than 98. Even college level history is not challenging overall. And I say from the experience of carrying my wife to a 4.0 grade average in her college history courses.
quote:
I'd say the average boomer thinks D-Day was the biggest event in WWII and has no appreciation whatsoever for the horrific carnage that set the stage for its success.
That’s because the average person, be they a Boomer or not, is totally ignorant of history. I and a few others here like RollTide1987, though are what I like to categorize as “history nerds”. We study history like a crack head studies how to get their next rock. I’ve been this way since I was a little kid. History, especially military history, has always been one of, if not the, chief passions in my life. But your average person has little to no interest in history of any sort. That is why so many people have a warped view of history.
Posted on 3/9/23 at 10:03 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
I'd say the average boomer thinks D-Day was the biggest event in WWII and has no appreciation whatsoever for the horrific carnage that set the stage for its success
For example, the Eighth Air Force and their sacrifices gets forgotten. They lost 60 bombers and 600 men in one mission. Then did it again a couple days later with the same result.
Posted on 3/9/23 at 10:07 am to sledgehammer
quote:
For example, the Eighth Air Force and their sacrifices gets forgotten. They lost 60 bombers and 600 men in one mission. Then did it again a couple days later with the same result
The 8th Air Force had a higher casualty rate than any Army or Marine infantry division in either Europe or the Pacific.
You were safer as a Marine storming a beach in the Pacific or a GI trying to take a French Village defended by SS Panzer grenadiers than to be a crewman of a B-17 or B-24 on a bombing run to Germany.
Posted on 3/9/23 at 10:26 am to Darth_Vader
quote:What would you highlight as the single most significant non-European, non-Japanese event/battle of the war? (Doesn't have to be necessarily defined by casualties).
That’s because the average person, be they a Boomer or not, is totally ignorant of history. I and a few others here like RollTide1987, though are what I like to categorize as “history nerds”. We study history like a crack head studies how to get their next rock. I’ve been this way since I was a little kid. History, especially military history, has always been one of, if not the, chief passions in my life. But your average person has little to no interest in history of any sort. That is why so many people have a warped view of history.
Posted on 3/9/23 at 10:28 am to cypresstiger
quote:
You never want to end up on the Eastern Front.
Colonel Klink was always threatened with being sent to the Eastern Front and that kept him inline.
Posted on 3/9/23 at 10:34 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
What would you highlight as the single most significant non-European, non-Japanese event/battle of the war? (Doesn't have to be necessarily defined by casualties).
When you say non-European, Non-Japanese battle, I’m guessing you’re talking about the Eastern Front, which technically is still Europe. Is that what you mean? Or are you talking North Africa? Atlantic?
Posted on 3/9/23 at 10:42 am to RollTide1987
The numbers on the eastern front are unbelievable. When you got two of the most blood thirsty leaders who ever lived fighting against each other you end up with that many casualties.
Posted on 3/9/23 at 10:54 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
That’s because the average person, be they a Boomer or not, is totally ignorant of history.
I said it earlier in the thread that highschool history classes teach names and dates. That’s it. Very little impact, importance, and perspective that historical events and periods had.
Long form history podcasts like Revolutions, HH, History on Fire, and their contemporaries and counterparts have allowed millions of people to investigate and learn history in a different fashion than ever before and at a depth not typically seen outside of academia.
People are actually doing their own learning and it’s awesome.
Posted on 3/9/23 at 10:57 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
What would you highlight as the single most significant non-European, non-Japanese event/battle of the war? (Doesn't have to be necessarily defined by casualties).
So you want the most impactful event in the eastern front only.
In my completely unqualified opinion it was Stalin forcing the relocation of factories beyond the Ural Mountains and out of reach of the German invasion. Had those factories stayed in the west, Russia would not have had the strategic depth nor resupplying capacity to continue the war.
Posted on 3/9/23 at 11:16 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Emphasized is different than pretending it was much more relevant than it was.
That’s your opinion… granted, it’s near impossible to teach history without opinion, especially with relatively recent events like WW2.
You gotta remember, pretty much all of us were taught through the lense of the Cold War… downplaying Soviet accomplishments (and also US aid that essentially kept the Soviets in the war) made sense in that context.
Posted on 3/9/23 at 11:17 am to Oilfieldbiology
That’s a big one and I’d say the lend lease was massive for the Soviet’s as well. America supplied enormous amounts of supplies, food, trucks and tanks to help them throw the nazis back
Posted on 3/9/23 at 11:23 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:its not like Britain or Russia are any better in this regard
It certainly defined the Second World War for the Americans… why would it not be emphasized in and American History class?
Emphasized is different than pretending it was much more relevant than it was.
Both 100% over exaggerate their contribution, to the degree that Russians would literally argue that they were singularly responsible for the victory
It was an allied effort. The Soviets, US, and Britain all needed eachother to get to the end. No one group is more responsible than the other
Posted on 3/9/23 at 11:27 am to Mstate
Just one overall point I want to make… folks act like the Soviets losing tens of millions of lives is some amazing accomplishment… it says more about the total incompetency of their political/military leadership than anything. It also speaks to the absolute ruthlessness of their regime
Are ruthlessness and incompetency traits to be admired?
Are ruthlessness and incompetency traits to be admired?
Posted on 3/9/23 at 11:29 am to lowspark12
Early Russian leadership was incompetent. Later Russian leadership was not. Their main advantage was superior numbers and ability to withstand absolute hell. They used it.
Posted on 3/9/23 at 11:38 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
The more numerous ‘static’ coast divisions were much less effective. These had little in the way of transport, and were merely expected to man fixed defences and hold their ground. They contained older troops, the medically unfit, and men recovering from wounds. Some also had contingents of Osttruppen, conscripts or volunteers from the Soviet Union and other eastern territories occupied by Germany. Many were former Soviet POWs and were generally regarded as having little value. These Ost battalions made up one-sixth of Seventh Army’s total number of men.
But you left out the fact that Army Group B and I believe Army Group G along with some Waffen SS and something like 14 SS Panzer divisions had been moved from the East to reinforce knowing that the invasion was imminent. And they were all under the comma d of Erwin Rommel who was no slouch for sure.
The biggest blunder of D-Day from the German side was the waiting for Hitler to wake up and send in the Panzers to reinforce and counter immediately. That delay in moving the Panzers forward was the fatla mistake that allowed the Allies to establish the beachhead and it was pretty much over after that once the allies started their push into France.
Posted on 3/9/23 at 11:49 am to IAmNERD
quote:
The biggest blunder of D-Day from the German side was the waiting for Hitler to wake up and send in the Panzers to reinforce and counter immediately. That delay in moving the Panzers forward was the fatla mistake that allowed the Allies to establish the beachhead and it was pretty much over after that once the allies started their push into France.
This has long been a point of discussion and debate. On the one hand, releasing the Panzers early would have caused havoc on the Allied beachheads. But on the other hand, those Panzer formations would have been sitting ducks to American and British fighter bombers as their long columns snaked through the Norman countryside roads.
This post was edited on 3/9/23 at 11:50 am
Posted on 3/9/23 at 12:33 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:Africa, Asia ex-Japan, etc. Not talking about the Eastern Front.
When you say non-European, Non-Japanese battle, I’m guessing you’re talking about the Eastern Front, which technically is still Europe. Is that what you mean? Or are you talking North Africa? Atlantic?
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News