As with so many recent volumes published in Russia/by
Russians, ‘The Price of Victory’ offers a mixed bag for readers. Those familiar with western academic studies might
come away perplexed by this narrative.
Lopukhovsky and Kavalerchik are not professional demographers or
statisticians, but they are attempting to add to the discourse around the topic
of casualties and combat losses in both the Red Army and their opponents
(Wehrmacht and allies). Thus, one of the
major weaknesses of this work is that its authors are not experts on the
subject they have set out to discuss and analyze. Additionally, readers unfamiliar with Russian
histories might find it somewhat off-putting that the authors regularly focus
on a few studies and continually attack the authors and their research. These polemical attacks, rarely found in
western academic research, are too often the norm among Russian researchers
(both academic and nonprofessional).
Instead of presenting their findings, the authors stress what they
believe to be sloppy or ideologically influenced conclusions, offer
hypotheticals about how and why specific conclusions were reached, and
continually ask rhetorical questions that do not add anything to their
argument(s).
For those able to overlook the above, the strengths of this
work become quickly apparent. That there
are problems with how Red Army military casualties were previously calculated
should come as no surprise to those familiar with the Second World War’s Eastern
Front. Only one text has regularly
served as a reference for those interested in the various campaigns Soviet
forces participated in and the losses they sustained. However, recently numerous authors,
researchers, and historians have pointed out the many inconsistencies in
Krivosheev’s “Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century” and
its second edition, available only in Russian to date. The majority of the examples provided by Lopukhovsky
and Kavalerchik focus on 1941 encirclements and the Battle of Kursk. Those with a passing interest in this subject
might become bogged down in the many figures, exclusions, extrapolations, etc.,
and the included tables with figure breakdowns are essential in helping to
pinpoint inconsistencies. The authors
rely on not only Russian archival and secondary sources, but also German,
English, and Finnish literature on the subject.
As just one example of the necessity of this type of study, with the
authors bringing to light recent research they show the dangers of underestimation
and overestimation when it comes to casualties for political or ideological
reasons. Just one inconsistency found by
the authors in Krivosheev’s work meant that either there were close to half a
million German deaths in Soviet POW camps or close to two million, if the
latter were proven true that would mean a reorientation of our understanding of
both the German and Soviet experience in the Second World War.
Regrettably, the inaccessibility of many archival
collections in today’s Russia automatically place limits on the conclusions the
authors are able to reach. Until Russian
authorities raise the seal of secrecy from numerous collections and files, we
only have bits and pieces of the greater whole to consult in order to access
some type of greater truth when it comes to Soviet casualties. Therefore, as the authors themselves point
out, this text is a starting point for future research. Only
after opening all formerly classified Soviet/Russian archives will historians
have a chance to review the actions of both the Red Army and Wehrmacht in more
detail. With this information, they will
undoubtedly reach a better understanding of how successful German operations
were in 1941, why the Red Army consistently retreated and left behind hundreds
of thousands of prisoners of war, and to what extent could Soviet forces have
avoided the numerous sacrifices so many were forced to make.
No comments:
Post a Comment