can anyone in here compare the ferocity of the battles on the western front and eastern front in world war 2 a

Question

i was allways told it was the allies that won world war two, but recently i saw a documentry about the second world war on tv and they said it was the soviets who won, even the germen troops they interviewed after admitted it.can any one pls fill me in briefly who won and wot the difference was on the two fronts?

Answer 1

It was certainly the soviet army that beat the german army, by the time of the D-Day invasion in 1944 the german army was a shadow of its former self having been in a relentless fight with the soviets for three years
The conditions on the eastern front were much harsher but the russians were better adapted to the climate and the germans found it much harder to supply their troops over long distances.
The battle of Stalingrad was the turning point and the german army never recovered.

Answer 2

A correction first, the Russians were allies of Britain, America and various others in WWII so whichever way you look at it the Allies won. Then, the war on the Eastern front was fought with far more ferocity, not just because of the numbers involved, but because the Germans were bent on exterminating the Slavic races who they considered inferior (untermensch). However it is not fair to say that the Russians won the war on their own, they were supported by Britain in their darkest hour (1941-43) through the arctic convoys and by America when she entered the war. Also after D-Day Hitler was faced with a war on two fronts which he could not hope to win. The Russian front always sucked in a vast amount of men and material but the Western front pushed inexorably onward too and with the heavy bombing campaign Hitler could not hope to replace his losses on either front.

Answer 3

EFW, good reproduction of numbers but you are quoting out of context, Tanks has put those figures into context as it was the conditions, (russian winters) that killed most german troops , lack of food for stalin and lenningrads that also with the weather killed the russians and the majority of those numbers mentioned were civillians, really was a horrible war on all fronts, to say one theatre was harsher than another is ignorant to say the least. another thing some of the battles, el alemain for example was fought in the desert where the population was sparse, and so of course the numbers there are primarily made up of military casualties.

There are plenty of websites to visit to see a correct account of all fronts, if you are that interested be sure to visit them.

Answer 4

I guess everyone else filled you in about the allies, so I'll skip that part.

Both fronts were ferocious.

The Germans had several technological advances that helped them in their fighting. They developed tanks, planes and submarines to a new level. They invented rockets and were working on a nuclear bomb while the Americans were too. Psychologically, they were whipped up into a frenzy by Hitler and the Nazis. They thought it was their destiny to conquer the world and destroy "lesser races."

The Japanese had a strong warrior tradition that was glorified by their leaders. They also had similar views of the cultures that surrounded them. Japanese pilots intentionally crashed their planes into allied targets. There were Japanese soldiers that were found in hiding on some remote Pacific island years after the war. They were still ready to fight to the death.

Answer 5

The number of deaths on both sides easily compares the ferocity of the battles. Consider the following:

EASTERN FRONT:
Stalingrad: 1.8 million
Siege of Leningrad: 1.5 million
Moscow 1941-42: 700,000
Smolensk 1941: 500,000
Kiev 1941: 400,000
Vorenesh 1942: 370,000
Belarus 1941: 370,000
2nd Rzhev-Sychevka: 270,000
Caucasus 1942: 260,000
Kursk: 230,000
Lower Dnieper: 170,000
Kongsberg: 170,000
Rostov: 150,000
Budapest: 130,000
and others with less killed

Whereas on the Western Front
Battle of France 180,000
Normandy: 132,000
El Alamein: 70,000
Battle of the Bulge: 38,000

Answer 6

The battle is but one theatre of war. The war in the Mid East As seen in "Lawrence of Arabia" or the Turkish war at "Galipoli," also show war in WW 1. It does even come close to talking about the air or naval war. Still a fine film.

Answer 7

the pacific theater was way meaner that the European theater.