News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on /story/39603299. Parent comment

Re: by toyg on Thursday March 07, 2024 @06:49AM (#39627915)
Tbf, a lot of those victims were due to dubious strategic choices. They could have probably conceded Stalingrad, for example, and refused to simply because of the propaganda angle. That battle alone was an absolute meat-grinder, and didn't really have to be.

But yes, the overall cost in human lives was higher for the Soviet Union than for any other country or federation.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by protomolecule on Thursday March 07, 2024 @11:56AM (#39631288)
Who would've been killing the Nazis then? The losses are approximately the same on both sides.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by suslik on Thursday March 07, 2024 @12:42PM (#39631981)
Stalingard was a trap for the 6th Army, which was beyond overextended and undersupplied. I have a strong prior that giving up Stalingrad and allowing Germans and their allies to resupply would've caused even more causalties, especially considering the Soviets would have had to attack over Volga. That final Russian bridgehead in Stalingrad was a horrible place, I imagine.
[ Parent | on HN ]