Who was really winning the War of Attrition?

[darbycmcd]

Pelton, why do you cut off your sample population/casualty at '44? If you want to exclude the end because of excessive casualties for the Axis, you should exclude the Barbarossa period as 'excessive' for the Soviets, yes? The Axis lost on the order of 5 million on the Eastern front. I would take POW deaths as valid for your arguement, as they are losses, but if you are going to quote just German losses you have to exclude Soviets killed by Axis minor allies. But it is simplistic to make that argument anyway. The question of 'winning' is, which side could sustain that level of operations? The Axis clearly could not, the soviets clearly could (at least to a point in time beyond which the axis could).

Every single time you try to use statistics you do so in a way which undermines your argument. I mean, you argue that the Germans were 'winning' the war of attrition. How could you possibly reconcile that position with what ACTUALLY happened? It makes no sense. I don't think you are a troll, I think you have sort of good intentions, and you clearly have moderate intelligence, but you are so desperate to prove the superiority of the German army that you cannot seem to think clearly about this. Start from the very very basic level, the Soviets WON. then build an understanding of the conflict from there.

[Seminole]

What's the prize for winning the war of attrition when the enemy overruns your country?