Norway was swamped with 1/2 million German soldiers. One German soldier per every 6 or 7 Norwegian.
Very similar as in Yugoslavia – more 300.000 German soldiers, more than 300.000 Italians plus 200.000 from other axis countries and local collaborators, so 800.000 to a population of 15.5 million.
They stayed here all through the war. They didn’t do much except playing socker and building roads and airports, seriously.
Quite opposite to Yugoslavia where they destroyed pretty much everything and killed 6.5-7.5% of total population (depending on data sources).
How on earth would closing off relationships with Russia prevent Putin from going bad/mad? It’s just nonsense, and has nothing to do with Putins behavior.
Russian history, and all significant changes, has always pivoted around changes in their leaders. Russia is and probably always will be tied to strong men – basically ex gangsters. “Nation building” (via military action and occupation) is nowadays recognised as not working anywhere, and it would absolutely never work in Russia. Perhaps the last still-working example is Japan, but that’s due to an ultra-compliant population (and practical measures like leaving Hirohito on the throne). The type of compliant population is the key, and in addition to it having been very well managed by MacArthur & co, Japan’s hard working population came out loving the US ever since, despite having been bombed out and then twice nuked by them. I have customers in Japan who buy via the US, because of this relationship, 77 years later! Russian population is quite different, having had 100 years of socialism/communism which – like everywhere – suppressed all interest in improving one’s life, and they have become IMHO beyond any possibility of repair.
With Russia, isolation (commercial and military) is the only way. Commercial isolation could, as a temporary change, be lifted if there was a total change in leadership, but that has not happened in 100 years because, to use an old phrase, they get the leaders they deserve. Putin didn’t just get beamed down from some planet. The population will always install, actively or by default, some “Putin”. Military isolation is not optional, though it amazes me how long this is taking to sink in. Bulgaria has just started supporting Ukraine yesterday; what planet have they been living on?
Why on earth would Germany bind up so many soldiers during the entire war doing nothing?
Preventing an invasion of European mainland, via Norway, would be #1.
and local collaborators, so 800.000 to a population of 15.5 million.
“Collaborator” is a great word – same in most languages (“kolaborant” in Czech) and a dirty word in every country because every country under occupation has had them, and every country not under occupation has been taking the moral p1ss out of every country under occupation 
Ukraine will have a million plus collaborators. They have just ejected the Russian Orthodox church, whose leaders were apparently all KGB agents:
Emir wrote:
WW2 casualties, military personnel vs civilians:
Norway 3,000 9,500
Soviet Union 10,700,000 9,000,000
United Kingdom 383,600 450,700
United States 416,800 418,500
Yugoslavia 446,000 1,000,000
Who where the US civilian? This makes no sense. Also, the Soviet lost 24 million people. According to this., the US lost 416800 military personnel, and 1700 civilians.
Breaking down those numbers. Norway had 3 million inhabitants in 1940 and according to official statistics only 10262 died (unnatural death due to the war). The US had 132 million inhabitants and lost 418000 due to the war. In percentage of the population the US lost 0.32 percent. Norway lost 0.34 percent. The USSR had 194 million inhabitants in 1940 and lost 24 million. That is 12.4 % of the population. Germany lost 7.7 million (5.5 mill soldiers). There is also 19 million Chinese casualties.
Based on numbers I think it is safe to say that the USSR is the one that broke the back bone of the German military. The US came in the end, cleaned up what was left, and stole the glory. The war in Europe was fought and won on the east front, between Germany and the USSR.
LeSving wrote:
Based on numbers I think it is safe to say that the USSR is the one that broke the back bone of the German military. The US came in the end, cleaned up what was left, and stole the glory. The war in Europe was fought and won on the east front, between Germany and the USSR.
That is true, however one shouldn’t underestimate the amount of military aid the US delivered to the UdSSR and the strategic implications of opening up additional fronts in Italy (Anzio etc.) and France (Normandy), without which the the German forces would have been able to concentrate fully on the Eastern Front.
Also, strategic bombing of Germany from 1942 on heavily impaired the German logistics and was mostly done by US and UK aircraft.
Could the Soviet Union have taken on Germany on its own? Probably yes, eventually, but their losses would have been even heavier and the war may have dragged on for even more years.
Also, without major German strategic mistakes in 1941 the USSR might actually have been defeated that very year, with German troops having advanced as far as Moscow.
Thankfully for the Allies, Hitler was strategically quite inept.
The USSR had 194 million inhabitants in 1940 and lost 24 million. That is 12.4 % of the population
Means nothing. It is the way Russia does things. They pour men in until the other side runs out of ammo. They did that in WW2 and they do it today in Ukraine. It isn’t a virtue; it is just stupidity. Every day, they do several assaults, lose a few hundred dead and a few hundred injured, retreat, and do the same again the following day.
The USSR lost 50x more men than the USA because the US works much smarter and values the lives of its soldiers. Not just in battle but also in weapon design – US stuff is much safer. Russians don’t really care if something blows up every so often.
USSR is the one that broke the back bone of the German military
They did the assault from the east, wasting millions of people (and raping as many civilians as they could find on the way).
LeSving wrote:
Who where the US civilian? This makes no sense. […] According to this., the US lost 416800 military personnel, and 1700 civilians.
As it happens Emir’s figures were 416,800 vs. 418,500 and 418,500 = 416,800 + 1,700! So there must be some mixup of figures. As regards, civilian casualties, I guess there were some at Pearl Harbour. Also there must have been some civilians associated with then troops and doing various kinds of support abroad. To get the aviation connection, Ernest K. Gann, author of “Fate is the Hunter”, flew military transport missions during WWII as a civilian pilot.
The USSR lost 50x more men than the USA because the US works much smarter and values the lives of its soldiers. Not just in battle but also in weapon design
112,000 Americans were killed defeating the Japanese, not 400,000 as in Europe and many would say its only the timing of atom bomb development that prevented the ‘bomb ends war’ scenario happening to Berlin first, or some other German target, with less American and allied lives thereby being lost in that particular round of putting European violence back in its box.
The Chinese lost millions to Japanese tyranny, much like the Russians in Europe, but there was no reason for the US to do the same if it could be avoided, while still solving the problem. Patton was correct about giving your life for your country: when necessary to solve a problem overseas, that’s something that you try to inflict on your opponent, not accept for yourself.
We’d see how many Europeans would show up to help and die if Russia were to invade Alaska or Canada, and how many weapons they’d send. Of course Russia won’t do that because unlike the EU, the US meaningfully invests in its own defense.
I saw those same numbers that Emir wrote, the first number is the military casualties, the second combines military & civilian.
Peter wrote:
Means nothing
It means that’s the east front was the place the majority of the war was fought. That’s were Germany lost more than 80% of the soldiers who died in combat. Another thing is that they were both seen as “evils”; Nazism and Communism. They fighting and killing each other wasn’t exactly such a bad turn of events. The general view in Norway was that the USSR (communism) attacking Finland in 1939, was a (much) worse evil than Nazism. At least until the spring of 1940 when Germany attacked. It must have been rather confusing times, and no Google to put things straight 
Saw a fresh interview with secretary general of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg today. He was rather straight forward, and said that Ukraine winning this war was 100% dependent on the west supplying weapons. He also said that if Ukraine didn’t win, we could easily end up with a full war between the west and Russia. He didn’t think that would happen though.
LeSving wrote:
He also said that if Ukraine didn’t win, we could easily end up with a full war between the west and Russia. He didn’t think that would happen though.
Hope he is right, personally I am not that optimistic. Putin is painted in a corner and might wish to take as many of us with him if he goes down the drain. As for Ukraine winning, that is pure wishful thinking. They can at most keep Russia at bay, until they run out of men and weapons. Russia will not stop the agression against Ukraine unless they get their will, which means at the very least Selenski and his government replaced by someone they can live with.
I think some of the experts who claim that Russia will sit out the winter to regroup and to reorganize itself and then attack with full force in spring is the most likely thing to happen. Putin won’t make the same mistake twice and attack them with half measures.
