Keep up the good work

always.

I am out for a while, have fun with The Baron, Better.
😉

Take care

Officially Soviet Losses stands at 27 mln (it was 5 mln -by Stalin, 20 mln - by Khruchev and 27 mln set by Gorbachov is not changed yet). Colonel Krivosheev in his 1997 book put numbers lower - at 11 mln personnel. Many other historians disagree. Even Russian officials.

Soviet military "prowess" example from Krivoshev's book book: "For example, in 1944, the Red Army lost 52.7 percent or 13,800 of the medium tanks which included the number available at the beginning of the year and those received from production." as you see it was 1944 when German war machine was dying.

US casulaties by state are below - you can calculate total yourself. They are - overall - mostly Pacific plus Europe and Africa (don't go beyond 300,000 summing):
Alabama: 5,114
Alaska: 91
Arizona: 1,613
Arkansas: 3,814
California: 17,022
Colorado: 2,697
Connecticut: 4,347
Delaware: 579
DC: 3,029
Florida: 3,540
Georgia: 5,701
Hawaii: 689
Idaho: 1,419
Illinois: 18,601
Indiana: 8,131
Iowa: 5,633
Kansas: 4,526
Kentucky: 6,802
Louisiana: 3,964
Maine: 2,156
Maryland: 4,375
Massachusetts: 10,033
Michigan: 12,885
Minnesota: 6,462
Mississippi: 3,555
Missouri: 8,003
Montana: 1,553
Nebraska: 2,976
Nevada: 349
New Hampshire: 1,203
New Jersey: 10,372
New Mexico: 2,032
New York: 31,215
North Carolina: 7,109
North Dakota: 1,626
Ohio: 16,828
Oklahoma: 5,474
Oregon: 2,835
Pennsylvania: 26,554
Rhode Island: 1,669
South Carolina: 3,423
South Dakota: 1,426
Tennessee: 6,528
Texas: 15,764
Utah: 1,450
Vermont: 874
Virginia: 6,007
Washington: 3,941
West Virginia: 4,865
Wisconsin: 7,038
Wyoming: 652

German casualties are set from 9 mln to 13 mln dead on all fronts.

Pennsylvania: 26,554
What the heck happened here? It has to say something about their fighting skills!

gm,
I had my sourse, you had yours. I showed where I got my sourse and you didn't. #1 - American losses in Africa were minimal. #2 - total number of Allies died on the western front exceeds 200,000 (look up the table of total losses during WWII), you can calculate it yourself. #3 - my sourse says 25.5 mln Russian died, you insist on 27mln. - I don't see any point of you arguing something like that. I will give you that 1.5 mln.

..all the orphanages are run by Romanians;
.. and the common language is Dutch;
..and master of ceremonies is a local buttplugged dumb_bell betterthanyou.
HONESTLY UP_YOURS,
BARON WHITE HOUSE

By BENJAMIN SCHWARZ


Each June, Americans rightfully honor the bravery and sacrifice of the men who invaded Normandy in 1944. Recently, however, this celebration has too often lapsed into a solipsistic and deeply flawed revision of the U.S. role in World War II, which leads to equally self-congratulatory but far more dangerous conclusions about America's purpose in the world today. If Americans are to get a more balanced view of their history and their global role, we should remember another June anniversary: today, the 59th anniversary of Germany's invasion of Russia.
A national mythology has emerged that in 1941 the United States, appalled by the horrific policies of the Nazis, deliberately embarked on a crusade to rid the world of Hitler and to stop the Holocaust. D-Day was, according to this version of events, the decisive point in the "Good War," when American troops, piously aware of the noble cause for which they fought, began the military operations that defeated Nazi Germany. Having beat Hitler and made possible a better world, the United States remains to this day what Secretary of State Madeleine Albright declares "the indispensable nation."
Some reminders are in order.
First, of course, such a view slights the anti-Japanese dimension of the U.S. war, which was the real reason the United States had gone to war in the first place. Nazi Germany declared war on the United States in accord with its treaty with Japan; only then did the U.S. declare that Germany was its enemy too. For most Americans, the purpose of the war remained to exact revenge on the Japanese.
Second, stopping the mass murder of the Jews didn't figure in any way in either American war aims or conduct. As for American soldiers and sailors, they fought the war, as historian and critic Paul Fussell declares, "in an ideological vacuum." The war was "about your military unit and your loyalty to it." Plainly put, they fought the war to end it so that they could go home, a point of view entirely reasonable and even courageous, but hardly high-minded.
As far as the U.S. contribution to defeating the Nazis goes, even though Time magazine anointed Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower as "The Man Who Defeated Hitler," if any one man deserves that label, it's Soviet Army Marshal G.K. Zhukov, or possibly Josef Stalin. The main scene of the Nazis' defeat wasn't Normandy or anywhere else Americans fought, but rather the Eastern Front, where the conflict was the most terrible war fought in history. It claimed 50 million Soviet civilian deaths and 29 million Soviet military casualties. But more to the point, Americans should recall that about 88% of all German casualties fell in the war with Russia.
Until the Normandy invasion--from June 1941 to June 1944--almost the whole of the Nazi war machine was concentrated in the East; and even two months after D-Day, well over half the German army was still fighting the Soviets. Military historians date the war's turning point two years before D-Day when, at Stalingrad, the Soviets eradicated 50 divisions from the Axis order of battle, or nearly one year before when, at the Battle of Kursk, the Red Army smashed the Wehrmacht's strategic tank force, breaking the Nazis' capacity for large-scale attack. And it was the Red Army that liberated Auschwitz and bore down on Hitler's bunker.
The moral narcissism that characterizes recent American discussion of our role in World War II breeds within too many of our statesmen a smug and reckless pride. After all, the thinking goes, if history has shown the United States to be so virtuous, then any that oppose us must be evil.
Today, Americans need not honor the Russian dead as we do our own, but we should give credit where credit is due, and we must not make exaggerated claims for ourselves. In contemplating how our WWII role influences our conduct in the contemporary world, Americans should remember that self-righteousness is bad enough, but when it springs largely from a self-serving mythology, it is insufferable.

- - -

Benjamin Schwarz Is the Literary Editor of the Atlantic Monthly

NATO Links Weapons Cache to KLA
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer

PRISTINA, Yugoslavia (AP) - NATO said Friday that a huge cache of weapons including mortars, mines and machine guns found last week belonged to the Kosovo Liberation Army.

The weapons stash, the largest found since the end of Kosovo's war, raised questions about the supposedly disbanded KLA's compliance with an order to disarm. The weapons were found June 16 near Klecka, about 20 miles southwest of Pristina.

Maj. Scott Slaten, a NATO spokesman, said documents found at the site indicate the weapons belonged to the KLA, the ethnic Albanian guerrillas who fought the Serbs until NATO bombing led President Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw his forces.

Senior British peacekeepers said KLA leaders must have known about the weapons and the failure to turn them in, as called for by the Kosovo peace agreement.

On Friday, however, Slaten said there was no evidence that Agim Ceku, the former KLA commander who now heads the Kosovo Protection Corps, knew of the cache. The Kosovo Protection Corps is a disaster response unit made up of many former KLA members.

If NATO established a link between Ceku and the weapons, the Serbs, Russians and others could press to remove him as head of the protection corps.

Slaten suggested that lack of discipline within the KLA could mean that Ceku did not necessarily know about arms being hidden by others in his organization.

``To say that Ceku had overriding authority (in the KLA) is a misconception,'' he said.

Ceku himself denied knowledge of the arms cache last weekend. At the same time, he appeared to contradict NATO's assertion that the weapons were owned by the KLA, saying his forces had turned in all their arms as called for by the Kosovo peace agreement.

The weapons, stashed in several concrete bunkers and near Ceku's former headquarters, included large quantities of mortars, anti-tank rocket launchers and missiles, hundreds of mines, dozens of boxes of ammunition, four heavy machine-guns and other ordnance.

In September, peacekeepers declared that the KLA had complied with orders to turn over all its weapons. On Sept. 20, NATO agreed to reorganize the KLA into the protection force in a deal personally negotiated by the alliance's supreme commander for Europe, Gen. Wesley Clark, who gave his personal assurances that the former rebels had turned in all their weapons.

NATO officials suggested some of the weapons could have been used in recent attacks against Serb civilians, which Serb community leaders say are part of an ethnic Albanian campaign to drive Serbs from the province.

Slaten said the documents, which contained names and other evidence as to ownership of the weapons, would be investigated by U.N. police. If found to have been used in recent attacks on Serbs or others, charges would likely be filed, he added.

Friday June 23 3:02 PM ET
Russia, China Conduct Walk Out in U.N. Council

Reuters Photo


By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The Security Council took the unusual step of excluding Yugoslavia's U.N. envoy from a debate on the Balkans on Friday, prompting Russia's ambassador to stage a demonstrative walk out.

``To discuss the Balkan problem without Yugoslavia is nonsense,'' Ambassador Sergei Lavrov said before leaving the chamber and placing a junior envoy in the Russian seat.

China's envoy followed a few minutes later during a speech by Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, presumably because he headed NATO during its 11-week bombing of Serbia during the Kosovo crisis last year.

China, however, participated in the debate on the Balkans whereas no Russian diplomat spoke after the controversy over Yugoslavia's presence.

U.S. ambassador Richard Holbrooke led the challenge on grounds that the Yugoslav leadership, including President Slobodan Milosevic, was under indictment by a U.N. tribunal for alleged crimes committed during last year's Kosovo crisis.


``It would be inappropriate to allow the representative of this government to use this council in a discussion of where we stand on Kosovo,'' he said.

Yugoslavia's envoy Vladislav Jovanovic has spoken to the council many times before on Balkan issues, the last being one year ago shortly after the indictments in May 1999.

Diplomats said he had tried to since then but was prevented in private consultations. One key council envoy said Friday's confrontation was ordered by Milosevic.

Milosevic and four of his top lieutenants were indicted as war criminals by the Hague-based tribunal for crimes against humanity, including murder, during the Kosovo conflict.

The indictments took place amid last spring's NATO bombing raid against Serbia to force Belgrade's troops out of Kosovo province where they were killing and expelling in large numbers the country's ethnic Albanian majority.

The vote on whether Jovanovic should speak was four in favor, seven against with four abstentions in the 15-member council. Under council rules, procedural matters needs nine ''yes'' votes, with permanent members, such as Russia, the United States, Britain, China and France, unable to use their veto.

Voting in favor of Jovanovic were Russia, China, Ukraine and Namibia; those against were the United States, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Canada; abstaining were Mali, Tunisia, Argentina and Jamaica.

Jovanovic told reporters the action in the council was part ''of the aggressive policy which the U.S. administration has been pursing against Yugoslavia for years.''

He said that the seven votes against him were from NATO members and two ``extremist'' Islamic countries, Bangladesh and Malaysia, thereby constituting a ``moral victory'' for Belgrade.

Lavrov told the council the vote was against the spirit of the U.N. Charter which allowed even a country that was not a U. N. member to participate when it was a party to a conflict the council was discussing.

``Gagging people's mouths is not the best way to discuss the acute international problems in this way,'' Lavrov said.

``A very dangerous precedent has thus been created when states that are unpalatable for political reasons are being isolated from participation in the work of the United Nations,'' Lavrov said.

``Yugoslavia has a right to participate. It is a country whose interests are directly affected by this question,'' Lavrov told the council, adding that the tribunal was a politically motivated.

``Even a defendant has a right to defend his or her position,'' he said.

After the vote on Yugoslavia, China's deputy ambassador, Shen Guofang, walked out of the council during an address by Javier Solana, now the secretary-general of a European Union council on a common foreign policy.

When he returned Shen mentioned the U.S. bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, which Washington says was due to bad maps. He also reminded the council that every country had a right to state its views. ``This decision is a wrong decision'' and ``does not help a solution in the Balkans,'' Shen said.

Solana was secretary-general of NATO during its air campaign to force Belgrade to stop repressing ethnic Albanians in Kosovo province, thousands of whom were expelled..

Yugoslavia's membership of the United Nations has been in dispute since 1992, when four of its six constituent republics declared their independence. It has been suspended from the U.N. General Assembly until its status is cleared.

By Dimitri ( - 63.85.63.20) on Friday, June 23, 2000 - 08:48 pm:gm, I had my sourse, you had yours.

Exactly. Soviets are in numbers, they fight by them, they die by them. And only their statistics goes beyond - who cares 5 mln, 20 mln, 27 mln, 40 mln, whatever...

Regarding Africa - it was a major battlefield, in 1943 Rommel was stopped there at El-Alamein (by outnumbered Allies, btw). If not the war would probably be over, especially for Soviets.

Now proud example for you - Battle of Kursk. Germans lost around 3,000 tanks, Soviets - around 12,000.

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/anw/ Mary I am curious what country do you live in?

Mary??

Look sorry about the incident with the tank, I truly thought I had left it in neutral.
Speak to me!

Kim