Who was more effective against Germany, Western Front or Eastern Front?

my thoughts exactly ... so lack of fuel bastogne etc had nothing to do with it ...... where does that guy get his theories from ? kgb schoolbooks ?

 

I won't dismiss that assertion so easily. I always found it very odd that the German forward units ran out of fuel and munitions so quickly. (1.SS and 2.Panzer). I recall that, at one moment during the advance, the 1.SS failed to connect with a supply column thanks to the latter's interception by US armor. Oddly enough, the SS troops did not receive another column.

I know the terrain and the precarious tactical situation had much to do with it, but I wonder if some stockpiled munitions, fuel, and supply columns that were earmarked for the West front were sent East.

 

Remember that the Western Allies had spent years bombing Axis infrastructure and cities by 1944. German transport was subject to air attacks by day, and the factories, refineries and railway lines were under continuous bombardment. Allied air power made logistics difficult in the West.

In evaluating contributions to the war effort, strategic bombing from the West struck at German cities and industries in a way the Soviets could not. This significantly affected war production (yes, I know that total production increased over those years, but the increase would have been much greater if factories weren't being destroyed and workers killed by air raids).

 

by the time the russians got to german territory the german cities were piles of rubble with all the effects on the german morale at the front (knowing that your family are being bombarded night after night by the RAF with ever increasing casulties must have had devastating effect on the average fritz)

 

The problem was not so much production- Germany lacked fuel and well trained men.
There were simply not enough trained German airmen/panzer troops and fuel & logistics for all of those tanks and aircraft produced in 1944.

And the loss of Romania in Bagration guaranteed Germany's quick demise.

 

Just wanted to add another consideration to the thread, of what was going on among the oberkommando and Nazi appointments throughout the war. These undoubtedly had tremendous and dramatic effect upon Wehrmacht strategic capabilities.
I've seen diary entries among the General Staff in mid 42 that state a complete loss of faith in higher military authorities due to Hitler's direct interference. I'd say from about December 41 the Wehrmacht was only a shadow of its former self, materiel excepted.

 

Was the German fuel reserve already in a state of near crisis prior to Bagration? In Wikipedia's entry on Model made a passing statement that his unorthodox strategy of putting panzers well-forward during the fighting at 1943 can be partly attributed to the shortage of fuel, which prevented the doctrine of holding mobile troops in deep reserve to be truly effective.

 

According to C Winchester all the Ostfront losses 1941-1945 outnumbered all of the WW1 losses on all fronts 1914-1918...Just something to think about...

Amazon.com: Ostfront : Hitler's War on Russia 1941-45: Charles Winchester: Books

 

Uhum! Just cause America never frought the Germans full power brunt,does;t mean Briton did not either!
Briton fight the might of the germans in 1939 and on wards! So that means Brition went thruogh what Russia went thruogh.

 

Heidi, the scale of the Russian Front was much greater than the western Front. And the Russians also had to deal with the ideological warfare of the Nazis in full force during a period where wholesale slaughter of civilians was being massively upgraded and specifically targeting the very fabric of social infrastructure. Immediate death sentencing including intellectuals such as school teachers.
It is not nearly the same experience. Ten year old children were being murdered by the truckload just outside Stalingrad. Young women from the university manned anti tank guns on the northwest approach. I don't think the two campaigns compare, England itself was only at genuine immediate threat for a very limited period and was never invaded. There were tens of thousands of Soviet/Russian/Slavic civilians murdered for every Londoner killed during the entire war. There could be no Russian Dunkirk, there was no live to fight another day, production of existing equipment could not be slowed to develop newer technologies or for any reason, nobody was going to fight anyone on the beaches and Britain's last ditch plan of defence was the Soviet starting point, they fought in their homes using hammers and vases where the case may be.

If England had lost the war in 1940 and then fought a partisan action to repel the successful invasion and finally turn the tide being fed by Irish and Scottish industry, the two would be a closer comparison, but this still doesn't deal with the genocide to which Britons would not for the most part be subjected to.

Not to mention I've always found patriotic contest using WW2 as a proxy to be exceedingly distasteful. I don't care if poms think the Battle of Britain was a big hoohah and yanks think they won the war. That's just high school kids backing their football teams without the slightest concept of what actually happened.
A bunch of very bad men created a situation where another bunch of very bad men let a bunch of totally evil men get into power and nobody learned a damn thing.

 

mmm,well you have a point here,the russians were rape beaten and killed.
Russia did cope the full brunt.
But i was actually talking about Briton coping the full brunt in 1939 against the germans,while the americans join ww2,when germany was close to foundering.

 

Yeah I know. It's just easy for people to take a summarised view the wrong way unless it is very carefully worded. Often people spend a great deal of effort to describe a particular battle and the materiel used rather than just saying yanks talk shit. It's just not polite and they've got the bomb.



(totally kidding by the way, just illustrating a point fictitiously, I love yanks, marry me Charlize Theron)

 

Charlize Theron is from South Africa

 

I think what Vet was referring to was the overall quality of men, motivation and leadership. By October of 1943 the German army (in this respect) was very different from the invincible force of 41'. There is no comparison of the German soldier of 41' and that of 44'.

He's not raving mate. When Battle of the Bulge began, the allies were shocked at such an offensive and Churchill phoned Stalin and pleaded with him to increase pressure in the East. While it is safe to say that the Ardennes Offensive was doomed from the beginning, such a phone call was made.

 

No country in the history went through what Russia went through in WW2. China would probably come in second.

 

Russia was with in an alliance with the evil Hilter 1939,so i don't think Russia went though as bad as Poland did having the German and Russian army.
The Russian only had the Germans invading,the polish had Germans and russians invading,i'll let you do the math.

Than the Germans aswell having Briton USA,Russia all invading at the same time!
So the Polish and the Germans went though hell more badly than the Russians.

least the Russians had a huge army when being invaded,not like the poor old polish and the little /old man army which Germany had.

And yes,i do think Russians suffered but they were not us weak as you think they were.

 

She (Russians) suffered by far the greatest casualties of any country on either side... 27 Million. The Soviet Union made the greatest contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany. My vote - Eastern Front

 

She Russia also made great contribution to the Nazi Germany and Hitler by invading poland and agreeing with hitler,can you call that a great contribution?1 hope you have not forgotten!

PS- can you call Russia a good contribution to the Allies??? she Russia ,was not 100% angel! (If you are an Russian member,forgive me,but i don't see Russia has being has a hero like history has protrade her (Russia) to be)

The most contribution came from Briton,she Briton was against Nazi Germany from the very start,unlike Russia and America!
So,in my eyes,it was the western front.

 

Heidi I quite like you, your avatar is beautiful and your words are always honest, it is also clear you have a good heart.
I wouldn't even bother saying this to someone I didn't appreciate.
I just wanted to mention, several Germans were against the Nazis too. And many Soviets were against Stalin. We should always be careful about pointing fingers of blame and accountability. It must be clearly documented by individual case.

A Russian mother watching her children being murdered by the SS-Einsatzgruppen is just as sad as a British child mourning the death of his parents.
We cannot say that mother is less moral than this child. We can only say it is terrible for everyone, and blame those specifically responsible for documented incidents. Everybody suffered, German, Soviet, British. Nobody should have less righteous sympathy just because of the place they were born, most Soviets had no say in Stalin's crimes against humanity, they were just farmers, labourers, etc. trying to eke out a living and do the right thing by their version of God. In Germany school students were beheaded for daring to resist the Nazi regime, did they not resist enough? Are they immoral?

I cry for all Germans, Soviets, British, everyone.

 

I hope i was not to rude about the Russians with my post above! I was just saying i think that the British put alot of effort into ww2 and feel that they were there from 1939-1945,that the british had to have more an impact on ww2 than other Allied nations.

I do know a story about a baby/Infant Britsh girl that was killed by a Nazi V-2 rocket,very sad.
And about a Russian girl that had sticks shoved up her and she was dead,by the Germans,very sad. (or was that a German girl with sticks shoved in her by the russians?)I just can't remember.
So,i kind of know what you are trying to state to me.

Ps- you forgot to cry for the polish. I with you,i cry for everyone.