Battle for Berlin

It is common knowledge that after the war,Halder abused his function as head of the Historical Division,to falsify the history of WWII.Whatever may be the merites of the work,it is stupid and suicidal from the author to ask Halder to write a foreword. (why not Carell?)A serious historian who read the praising foreword by Halder,will have the tendency to throw the work in the dust-bin .

If I have the intention to buy a book,and I notice that Mark Weber (of Stormfront) has given a positive review,I will immediately change my intention .

Thus,saying : the book is good because Halder was giving a positive foreword ,is more than unwise .

 

In other words, you haven't even glanced at the free online document, that is on a .mil website? Clicking on a link too much?

So you're saying that you actually disagree with the foreword as written? You believe the defence was better organised than Halder says in the foreword? Or does what you are saying actually bear little or no relevance to the question at hand (The defence of Berlin)? Or is your post another exercise in threadcrapping?

Wikipedia has this to say:
"The historians Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davies II in The Myth of the Eastern Front (Cambridge University Press, 2008) argue that, after 1945, Halder played a key role in creating a false and mythic view of the Nazi-Soviet war in which the Wehrmacht was largely blameless for both Germany's military defeat and its war crimes."

Doesn't sound quite like "common knowledge" if it has to be argued, and that first in 2008. I'll concede the point, that Halder's own efforts were in that direction, but he was hardly alone in that conspiracy effort to whitewash the Wehrmacht. During the Cold War, Western Europe needed German experience. Halder's attitude to War Crimes does not make the document less interesting, or historical. The time period for Wehrmacht's ability to win the war is long past in April '45. I'd argue his role was only key because he was placed were he was. There was a reason he was placed were he was...

And as a conclusion, no one said anything about "good": The adjective I used was "interesting." I also found it interesting, that it was Halder writing the foreword: Halder couldn't possibly have known anything about the defence of Berlin first hand, as he was imprisoned at the time, and in South Tyrol.

From http://dictionary.reference.com
good
/gʊd/ Show Spelled adjective, better, best.


1. morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: a good man.
2. satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree: a good teacher; good health.
3. of high quality; excellent.
4. right; proper; fit: It is good that you are here. His credentials are good.
5. well-behaved: a good child.

interesting /ˈɪntərəstɪŋ, -trəstɪŋ, -təˌrɛstɪŋ/ Show Spelled

adjective
1. engaging or exciting and holding the attention or curiosity: an interesting book.
2. arousing a feeling of interest: an interesting face.

 

Nice debate. Bit heated, I see.

In Beevor's - "The Fall of Berlin", the scene that stuck with me was when Soviet troops apparently drew and quartered women using GM 4 bys. I only pray that never happened too often.

Beevor also catalogues the logistical, supply and communication catastrophes that plagued the defensive abilities.

 

I've tried so hard to read Beevor. I just can't do it. IMO, he uses too many emotionally value-loaded descriptions for what I expect an impassionate historian to be using. I don't want to be told what to think.

 

Guderian and Manstein both contributed to the it was all Hitlers fault myth. I think Warlimonts book is quite good in that he doesn't place blame, merely describes. Unfortunately since what few Soviets books came out were of little historical value since they reflected the party line. It wasn't until Erickson, Glantz and the others who brought forth the real story of Soviet success

 

About Halder's post-war activities (which started already in 1948,with Hitler als Feldherr,),the tendency of the Historical Division was already known in 1995,not in 2008:see:Bernd Wegner :Erschriebebe Siege:Franz Halde,die Historical Division und die Rekonstruktion des Zweiten Weltkrieges im Geiste des deutschen Generalstabes .

PP 291 and 295:

The Wehrmacht,and especially the general staff were historical victims of Hitler.

The war (especially the war in the East) was lost because of Hitler's interventions.

The German defense of Berlin was a part of the Historical division activities,and the praising foreword of Halder was only an imprimatur.

About the content : I have seen much better articles : 'The German defense of Berlin' is full of meaningless patronising clinchers,as :"the fighting in a city is always difficult for the attacker and the defender"something the US army was not unaware of,after the fighting in Cherbourg,Aachen,Manilla .

The article is not unknown:it has been parotted by a lot of Western historians,who were to lazy to search for something serious;attenuating circumstance is that the Soviet sources were even worse : only garbage .


Conclusion : The reliability of this"interesting" article is very questionable,and its seriousness is below the level of a cadet of West Point .

 

List those serious "articles", instead, please.

 

Useless comment entirely.

1) The point about Halder seeking to exonerate the Wehrmacht was conceded already, whether the criticism of his efforts occurs in 1995, 1975, or 2008 is actually not that compelling.
2) It was already apparent during the Nuremberg Trials; that former senior officers of the Wehrmacht were all desperately trying to exonerate the Wehrmacht from War Crimes. Unsuccessfully, I might add, after the testimony of, amongst others, Bach-Zelewski.
3) Halder was made Head of the Historical Division. For a reason. At a time in history, when the western allies needed German co-operation, and needed their own people and armed forces onboard co-operating with former enemies. It's all smoke and mirrors for public consumption. Its great, because in hindsight, who is going to assign blame further up the chain of command?

 

Useless comment : the reasons why the US were using former WM officers are defendable (the Soviets used them also):if the East used Paulus,why should the West not use Manstein ?
But,this is of topic : the point is that everything that was produced by the Historical Division had an agenda (blame Hitler for the defeat and proclaim that the WM was clean) and the US Army knew it (the coversations of Halder were bugged)..
:the point also is that most that was produced by the Historical Division was garbage .

 

You remember the big miracle that was to happen in front of Berlin? In a way Hitler had a plan, but he did not have the troops or the armor or planes to do it. For instance Steiner refused to attack from North due to not having the force powerful enough. Hitler himself only saw the units flags on the map but never the true battle worthiness of these, like they were 100% ready.

Personally about those rapes I can "understand" the Red Army´s action towards the Germans, just as the Germans had done in the USSR. But I cannot understand why the Red Army raped ALL women whether they were Polish, Russian etc transported as work force to the Reich. Or their country happened to be on the way to nazi Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_liberation_of_Poland

 

I don't know but after 4 years of abstinentia young men have really no idea what is a pretty woman. Anything else except nothing.

Anthony Bevor explains this phenomena in his "delicate" way:

The capacity of Soviet officers to convince themselves that most of the victims were either happy with their fate, or at least accepted that it was their turn to suffer after what the Wehrmacht had done in Russia, is striking. „Our fellows were so sex-starved‟, a Soviet major told the British journalist Alexander Werth, „that they often raped old women of sixty, seventy or even eighty – much to these grandmothers‟ surprise, if not downright delight‟.

 

Right, women love rape.

The red army also surprised the Chinese that fought with them against the Japanese. When they "liberated a village" they proceeded to rape any Chinese female they could get their hands on red or not. Political solidarity only goes so far you know. The old ones probably wanted it.

It really turns my stomach when I see leaders of the free world attend red army parades like they were some kind force for goodness and niceness. They were no better than the nazis.

 

LJAd; you still have to produce references to "serious" articles, as per my request.

You are great at trashing, and being critical. Driving by, and delivering oneliners containing little or no substance.

If you really want to make a contribution, please list these articles on this topic you've seen that are much better, and more serious, so your peers can educate themselves.

I didn't start this topic about the Battle for Berlin, to discourse on the merits of the Historical Division itself. Start your own thread, if that is what you wish to discuss.

 

The rapes were normally committed by the second echelon troops, many who had just been liberated from German captivity or occupation.

 

No, women hate it.

And what the Red Army soldiers did was usually a gang-rape. That is brutal, more violent rape and causes even more damage to the victim, both physically and psychically.

Officer Agranenko, marine infantry officer wrote in his diary: "Nine, ten, twelwe men at a time - they rape them on a collective basis".

It is interesting that Agranenko is an officer and he did nothing to prevent such regretful behaviour of his soldiers. It appears that rapes were sanctioned if not encouraged from the above. I am afraid there was some system in this orgy.

 

I often see this quoted but is there actually any evidence of it being true. I've seen a few quotes and these come from front line troops who would have good reason to blame the other troops if they were the culprits.

 

Christian Parkinson :Battle of Berlinart 2 :tactics and resources .

Interesting is that the author,a British journalist,is saying that ;when he was embedded in 2006 to a British armoured unit in Iraq,he was forbidden to take pictures of tanks with "slat " armour,because following the Army,this was a new and secret development,while,60 years before,the Soviets were already using this"new development" during the fighting in Berlin .

That's an exemple of something that would have been interesting for the US Army.

 

Maybe...Maybe not.

As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

Such armor was used on an ad hoc basis during World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, but never officially adopted. Further, the same armor was tested for the M-113 during the Vietnam era, but again, was not adopted.

Now, finally the US Army has cozied up to the idea of bar/slat armor, and is making effective use of it.

PS, the US Navy also made wide use of bar armor on their riverine monitors in Vietnam.

 

As usual I cannot do anything else but to agree with you. The theme itself is so grave and there is little reliable evidence to support all these exaggerated claims. Regarding this subject facts often mix with Göbbels's propaganda and the Cold War rhetoric. It will be always difficult to rectify the truth from lies and to talk about this theme with some factual certainty. There always will be many unanswered questions: Who raped more? Who was the worst in the raping business? Who's victims suffered more? However, all these questions seem irrelevant if we don't answer first the most important question: Who is to blame for all that madness?

At least, we can eliminate some of the suspects. An "Average Ivan" never wanted to travel to Germany, let alone to rape German women. All he wanted was to have his sweet little home, his own sweet wife and a bunch of healthy children. Then the murderers have arrived with swastikas and heads of death on their caps. Can we blame an "Average Ivan" for everything that happened to all these German women? I don't think so: he was invited.

Finally i will make a reference to "women" at the photo below staring at Hitler obviously trilled just with a sight at the beloved Adolf. These hands rising to salute the Führer were indecent invitation for rape, just at that time they weren't aware that they would be raped too, not just under-women at the east. Some of them really got what they were asking for.

 

Quite simply you are forgetting the real Battle "of" Berlin which was Bomber Command's almost nightly blasting of Berlin in the early weeks of 1944.

Thus the Battle for Berlin is the correct title for this discussion