The myths of WWII (Eastern Europe)

Actually I believe Hitler declared Britain as no longer a threat and that they would eventually give into peace.

 

But wasn't that a consequence of Luftwaffe’s failure to provide air supremacy over England and the invasion of Isles was out of question anyways, regardless of plans they had. On the other side Axis forces were running out of time to invade Russia.

The fall of the 3rd Reich has began with the defeat in battle for Britain! Here is the sequence: (1) Invasion of Isles - fails, (2) Conquest of Moscow - fails, (3) Siege of Stalingrad - fails. It is true that Axis has meanwhile won several brilliant victories in battles but they have failed utterly at decisive moments. Operation Uranus was just the beginning of harvest for Allies.

 

No,till the winter of 1940/1941,the German armaments production was focussed on the war against Britain,and the to be expected war with the US:the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe had priority .And in july 1941(when the Germans expected the collaps of the SU),the KM and the LW again got priority .For Hitler,the war against Britain got priority .

 

Hi Tamino,

don´t want to offend you, but from what comes your more or less hatred of the Germans in WW2 and as i can read with no exceptions? Your Father or Grandfather ( i´m not sure which one of both) was a partisan during ww2 which is OK and you can be proud of him. My Grandpa was at the Fallschirmjaeger and i´m proud of him too, but if i read your posts i shouldn´t be this. Which is the reason for it? And again don´t take this as a personal insult its just for being curios.

 

This is the wrong traditional view of Barbarossa.The Russians were not rounded up by the Germans,and they were not in a hasty retreat :it is the opposite :they were counter attacking with the aim of repelling the Germans and of advancing to Berlin .It is obvious that you have no idea of the bitter fighting of the first ten weeks(june-september) which was one of the bloodiest of the war .In this period,the Germans lost 410000 men (WITHOUT sickness cases,much more than during the first winter .
With hindsight,one can say that Germany lost the war in the East during that period ,and,after several weeks,the Germans realized this (see the well known notice in the diary of Halder)

 

3 excerpts from Halder's diary
1) on 24 june :it is now clear that the Russians are not thinking of withdrawal,but are throwing in everything they have to stop the German invasion .
My comment :this is a satisfied and reassured Halder,because,a general Russian withdrawal could make Barbarossa to fail
2)3 july:it is thus probably no overstatement to say that the Russian campaign has been won in the space of two weeks
My comment :a satisfied and reassured Halder,because it looks very much that the Soviet forces on the border are eliminated
3)11 august :it is increasingly plain that we have underestimated the Russian colossus.
My comment :an astonished and panicking Halder :Barbarossa had failed (and,IMHO)the only chance for the Germans to win .Barbarossa only could succeed if,after the elimination of the Russian army on the border,the Russians could not continue to throw in considerable reserves .And,this was not so:the Russians became stronger every day .

 

I think most of the Germaqn Senior Officers thought they could defeat Russia the same as they had everyone else. When they all wrote their memoirs in the 40's, 50's and 60's they all wanted to distance themselves from Hitler and the failiure. It was everyone else's fault. Hitler, the snow, the mud, the Siberians, the Italians, Rumanians, Hungarians anyone but them.

 

Correct, but have you ever seen a Genaral who has granted his mistakes?

 

I am sorry if I have made such impression; I am indeed sorry for that. I have many both personal and business relationships with Germans, my several distant relatives are Germans too. I live at the territory historically populated by German population. You can find out more if you just see what is written under the location in my profile. One of my employees is ethnic German. One of my best friends originates from East Prussia; now he lives in Baden-Württemberg. My nick-name is Tamino, a character from one of the best German operas, written by a German composer (falsely declared as an Austrian) who lived in Salzburg and Vienna. I have lots of affection for German people, probably much more than those who have collaborated during the War, for selfish reasons.

The main subject of this forum unfortunately covers the darkest part of German history. Without telling the truth, or should I say, a frank opinion, however bitter it is, conversation at this forum would have been impossible.

 

Tamino,

there is no need to excuse. It was only a question from my side! The posts had a undertone that someone could easily understood as you aren´t best friend of the Germans at this dark time. Truth and a own opinion are always the best companions wether they can bring you sometimes in troubles! No prob at all, Tamino!

 

The russians counterattacked how many times during Barbarossa? Like 4? Only one of them being on a major scale and all a failure. The russians might have killed 400000 Germans but they lost far more. They were being rounded up or withdrawing while Zhuukov built up an organized force to conduct a counteroffensive. that was zhukovs strategy. The russian forces were never trying to fight back or beat the Germans they were being sacrificed to save time for zhukov to organize and build up a force. Hence they stood their ground and got rounded up while the rest withdrew to the next defensive position. The counterattacks they conducted were minor and a failure.

 

Is it really because of the war with britain or the fact that the Kriegsmarine had low long range operational units that were needed and the fact that the LW had lost alot of its power in France and Britain and its expansion would be vital for any further operations, while the German heer had yet to sustain any major losses and was closest to its full operational strength? Emphasis was placed on the areas that needed units. The heer was not in as much need as the LW or KM.

 

My views
1) There is more resistance than expected.
2)Everything is going as planned
3) Not moving as fast as we thought.
Did the Germans really think they were going to kill/capture a few million russians and win a war? thats not logical the Germans have fought the russians several times and know better. However, the Germans did think that their technology was good enough to advance through the russian steppe and marsh with relative ease. And the Germans did not expect the russians to destroy everything on their way back inland. Thus the germans were left using primitive, flooded roads, soned water supply, and all the other goodies that scorched earth left them. Realize that it took the Germans a matter of months to come to Moscow, It would take the russians 3+ years to reach Berlin. And yet you think that the German war machine was broke during Barbarossa? Historians acocount the height of the German power in 1942. In fact BBC America lists the most powerful army in history as the German Wermacht 1942. Not 1941.

 

The facts are
1)That the Germans planned to eliminate the SU in a short and quick campaign,because they knew they could not eliminate the SU in a long campaign
2)That this plan (Barbarossa) failed :after ten weeks(=the short and quick campaign),the SU was not eliminated,and the Germans were weaker than on 22 june .

 

And,of course,the WM was broken on 1 september 1941.
The tanks :
On 22 june 17 PzD with 3500 tanks
On 1 september :losses :1179,replacements :96 (for the Pz IV:164/15),that means on 1 september 1941 only 2400 tanks for 17 PzD =an average of 140 (while on 22 june,the PzD had an average of 200 tanks),and the number of operational tanks on 1 september would be less,much less than 140.
The men :the Germans committed (reserves included) 3.2 million men between june and september.
They lost :
in june :41000
in july :127000
in august:196000
total :364000 (without sickness cases)and,before september there were NO replacements .
The result was that most divisions were down 15 % ,and(as most of the losses happened in the infantry),the infantry strength of the divisions was down :30/40 %.
That means an infantry batallion was down from 800 to 560/480 men,while the front line was increasing .
And,for most weapons,and for ammunition ,the loss/consumption was very big,and the replacements, ..insignifiant .

 

And,let's now talk about 1942(and the claim of BBC America that the WM was the strongest army in history,what,of course,is meaningless blahblah)
Not only were the Germans weaker,but the SU was stronger .
1)The Germans :while they attacked in june 1941 with 2.7 million men ,150 divisions and 3500 tanks,a year later,they only could gather for Fall Blau (by stripping the AGN and AGC) 67 divisions and 1475 tanks .(they had 2100 for the whole front)

2)The Soviets:while they had 2.7 million men(Anders Frankson is giving less :1.9 million,but,whatever)and some 10000 mostly not operational tanks,in june 1943,the SU had 5.9 million men and 4000 tanks.
The more men you have,the more you can afford to lose .
3)While in 1941,the German plan was to defeat the SU operationally,by defeating the Red Army,in 1942,they were already that weakened,that they had to resort to economic means:capture the oil of the Caucasus and hope that without this oil,the SU would have to beg for peace .
4)While in 1941,the Germans could commit 3.6 million men,the SU could commit 9 million men
In 1942,it was 4 million against 13 million
That the BBC list the WM of 1942 as the most powerful army in history is ,of course(as to be expected from journalist) meaningless :the WM of 1942 was stronger than the 1812 army of Napoleonand the WM of 1941 was stronger than the army of Caesar,Alexander the Great,Washington ,...,but,I doubt very much that any one could calculate that the WM of 1941 was stronger than the WM of 1941 (or the opposite),it also is meaningless :you only can calculate the strength of the WM compared to the strength of her enemies:before Barbarossa,the German army was stronger than the British Army,but the RN was stronger than the KM,while,after june 1941,the KM was stronger than the Soviet Navy,but,this is again meaningless,because the KM was not engaged against the Red Navy .
And,what will you use to calculate the strength:men ? number of tanks,artillery,aircraft ?How to compare the quality of the German tanks with the Soviet tanks ?
How to compare a Tiger tank with a PzIII,or a Matlda with a Sherman ? Etc.....;

 

First according to my sources , for operation Blau the Germans re-organized their army and actually fielded 170 divisions (more than Barbarossa) but these divisions contained fewer men. Not that its significant to my point anyways.
-next. you continue to try to throw the fact that the russians greatly outnumbered the germans and its clear this is the only thing you can argue. Yes there were about 3 million germans against 13 million russians along the front or whatever number you so want to throw but at what time during which battle ere the numbers like this? If you break things down further than a general view and look at actual tactical encounters the germans were never outnumbered like the numbers you display. taking numbers form wiki
Typhoon- Germans- men- 1 million russia- 1.25 million Germ tanks -1700 russia- 1000 (imagine that germany outnumbered the russians in tanks) guns g- 14k r-7,600 (again russia outnumbered)
Stalingrad G men-700,000 r- 1,143,100 tanks g- 500 r-894 guns g-10,250 r- 13,451
Kursk G men - 780k r- 1.9 million tanks- g-2928 r-2128.
And there was not a single moment where it was 28 million russians against 9 million germans. You are very correct when you say that superior numbers are a factor for russian victory. But you stretch it a bit far by assuming it was impossible for a german victory simply because they were outnumbered. The Germans had not lost tactical ability untill after kursk and it wasnt untill after stalingrad that the germans had lost the initiative. that is why historians claim those and not barbarossa as the turning points and last stand of the german army on the ostfront. If you watched BBC's show on which they examined the greatest armies of all time you would know better. all factors are accounted for. The German army of 1942 recieved the highest grade because it was the most complete fighting machine to ever see battle. It was equipped with the some of the best weaponry to ever see the battlefield. It had proven that it could acheive victory in the deserts of africa, the marshes of russia, and wherever it fought despite being outnumbered. It had some of the best tactical and strategic commanders in history at the helm. The army was simply over stretched, exhausted, and commited to fight too many simultaneous fronts, and in overall control by hitler who was far from a strategic or tactical genuis that he thought he was. If you took 100k men form the german army of 1942 and put it up against 100k men from the soviet army who would have won? the germans and that is why they are rated better. Yes numbers helped save russia but it wasnt a guarantee. In 1941, and 1942 numbers werent the only thing that saved russia. In 1943 then you have your case there was really nothing the germans could have done to fight against the numbers but early on the germans could have. It was possible.

 

No,you can't say that the Ostheer was stronger in 1942 than in 1941:in 1941,the Germans attacked from the East Sea to the Black Sea,and obtained a lot of successes,while in 1942,they were mainly in defensive(the Soviets attacked from the East Sea to the Black Sea),and ,their only offensive (Fall Blau), already failed after a few weeks).
Von Bock said that the Ostheer was in 1942 no longer capable of long range objectives .

 

May I ask just where the 3 million Germans vs 13 million Russians come from??

Also, which German army of 1942 are you speaking of (Germany had several in Russia alone)?

 

I have a couple of sources which state the Germany invaded with 3.05 mililon men, 3550 tanks and 2770 aircraft...