Very Narrow East Front Poll (1 Viewer)

[nasirkasmani]

this has been an engrossing a thread, and i very much enjoy this.
back to the pole, er.. i mean poll..
this is one of those things where either will be fine.

its like being asked to spend a night with either miss universe or miss world!

 

[Rob]

It really should be obvious where this conversation should go ,to informed and open minded students of history.

One should never paint history with a broad brush.

I brought up this book only because so many members here time and again bring up the naturally curious questions about WW II. Chief among them are why did Hitler and/or his Generals do what they did, when they did. Or why did they do one thing or another this way and not that way. ( Hindsight )

What really influenced Hitler's decision to invade the Soviet Union. Why didn't the German soldier have winter gear at the gates of Moscow even though it was issued to them. Why didn't Hitler's General's obey his repeated order to strengthen Army Group South flank long before the Russians cut off the 6th Army in Stalingrad.

These are among the questions to name a few that us armchair generals ask when were playing with TS, regardless or what era it may be.

Authors such as Paul Carroll, as well as others, mostly tell the story, although equally important, from the soldiers on the ground prespective. This may all be well and I do most enjoy that kind of reading myself, but that usually leaves the door open to so many unanswered questions, or have us craving for a more informed knownledge.

The book Hitler's War, is truly the only book ever written from the perspective of the " man in charge " namely Hitler himself. You might not have thought this could be possible to do, that is, someone writing a factual and unbiased view of the man, Hitler and did so more than 30 years ago.

I urge anyone to read this book. Most of your questions and more will be answered. See that era's world view of the greatest battles ever fought on this planet and I think you'll find this books contribution to one's knowledge of WW II history far outweigh the dangerous, politicly correct, and sometimes censored view of history.

Read it...and you be the judge.

The reason i said about moving the thread in the wrong direction is because there are people on this forum who,when it comes to an emotive subject,have a proven track record of not being able to take part in the conversation without hurling insults or getting themselves banned.

Also David Irving and his views are nothing to do with the Poll.

Rob

 

[Canadian Samurai]

I understand at Kursk the Tank action was so close quarter and desperate that some crews took to ramming each other in suicide attacks.Was this common only at Kursk does anyone know?.

Rob

I'm not even sure ramming was that common at Kursk. Most of the battle consisted of the Germans slowly advancing across a series of static defensive lines much like WW1, with relatively little close quarters tank vs. tank fighting. Many Soviet tanks were dug in and couldn't move. I'm sure the Germans suffered far more casualties due to mines, artillery, anti-tank guns, infantry swarming and Sturmovik strafing runs than they ever did from the odd suicidal Soviet tank crew.

Only at Prokhorovka (just one part of the Kursk operation) was there a really huge tank vs. tank clash where ramming might have occurred with some frequency. Granted, Prokhorovka was such a huge clash it could be classified as a separate battle in its own right, and often is.

So the idea that ramming won Kursk, or even that Soviet tank crews won Kursk, is perhaps a myth. That said, I haven't read anywhere near as much about Kursk as some folks here who can probably shed more light on this.

 

[Rob]

I'm not even sure ramming was that common at Kursk. Most of the battle consisted of the Germans slowly advancing across a series of static defensive lines much like WW1, with relatively little close quarters tank vs. tank fighting. Many Soviet tanks were dug in and couldn't move. I'm sure the Germans suffered far more casualties due to mines, artillery, anti-tank guns, infantry swarming and Sturmovik strafing runs than they ever did from the odd suicidal Soviet tank crew.

Only at Prokhorovka (just one part of the Kursk operation) was there a really huge tank vs. tank clash where ramming might have occurred with some frequency. Granted, Prokhorovka was such a huge clash it could be classified as a separate battle in its own right, and often is.

So the idea that ramming won Kursk, or even that Soviet tank crews won Kursk, is perhaps a myth. That said, I haven't read anywhere near as much about Kursk as some folks here who can probably shed more light on this.

Thanks Conrad i appreciate your view on this.After hearing about it i looked it up online,and there seems to be several people either saying it had little impact or denying it ever happened at all.I just wondered if there was any factual evidence,its mentioned in the docu's 'Tanks' and 'Battlefields' but this of course does not mean it happened.

Rob

 

[lancer]

Just a note here about the two front war Hitler was hoping for (meaning Japan attacking Russia). This wasn't going to happen and Hitler should have realized this. First and foremost, the Japanese had already had a taste of Russian capabilities at the Nomonhan incident. Japan had no intentions of rattling that cage again and went out of it's way to stay away from the Russians. The other factor is that Japan was rather heavily engaged elsewhere, as in China and the Pacific, and did not have the manpower or resources to fight a full-scale war with the Russians. Any hope Hitler had of a second front for the Russians was a pipe dream. -- lancer

 

[Spitfrnd]

Yes & no

Read how many real German casualties resulted in the battle of Kursk. I think you'll be surprised by how little there really were compared to the written hype of a battle of this intensity and this size. So why was there so much hype about this battle if it was such a meat grinder for the Germans ?

Well I am sure you have better information than I do but FWIW, I have read the Germans lost about 2/3rds of thier 2700 tanks in penetrating the Russian positions and 350 of their remaining 600 tanks in the "tank battle" stage of the operation with nearly 500,000 killed, wounded or missing. That sounds like a meat grinder to me. What are the real numbers?

 

[Rob]

Well I am sure you have better information than I do but FWIW, I have read the Germans lost about 2/3rds of thier 2700 tanks in penetrating the Russian positions and 350 of their remaining 600 tanks in the "tank battle" stage of the operation with nearly 500,000 killed, wounded or missing. That sounds like a meat grinder to me. What are the real numbers?

Didn't the Germans also lose a fair number of Tigers to land mines at the start of the Battle?

Rob

 

[fmethorst]

Maybe if Hitler and Himmler had not sent in murder gangs to shoot and gas Jews, Poles, Ukranians, Gypsies, Slavs and any other of the many groups he felt were ondersmench not worthy of life or racially worthless then he would have won the war. It seems many groups welcomed him for getting rid of the communists. They were rapidly disabused of this notion by the SS.

From the Nazi regime's perspective the Jews were the instigators of WWII and were behind both Bolshevism and the Plutocracies of the west. It is helpful to understand the Nazi's views to better appreciate their actions in the war. To say they were obsessed with the Jews would be an understatement.

While the Einsatzgruppen followed the Wehrmacht into Poland their primary target there was the Polish intelligentsia. It wasn't until the invasion of the Soviet Union that the lines blurred and the Bolshevik officials and the Jews became one and the same. What started with the shooting of Jewish men soon escalated to include all men women and children. This evolved into the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" in late 1941.

Goebbel's propaganda machine was highly effective at manipulating existing European anti-semetic attitudes into complicity.

 

[jazzeum]

I agree with the preceding post up to a point. The Nazis weren't interested in co-operating with possible local supporters. Just as they hated the Jews, to them the Slavic people were just as inferior. They were out to eradicate them for their glorious lebenstraum. The Ukranians were disaffected from the Soviets and were eager to co-operate and be co-opted by the Nazis, seeing them as their savior from Russian (Soviet) domination but the Nazis wanted no part of that. So, it just wasn't the Jews. Let's not also forget that the Nazis were quick to take advantage of old enmities.

A good book on the topic is Harold Evans' latest book on the Third Reich at War. Unfortunately, it can only be taken in small bites because of the topic. It can overwhelm you at times. That's why I could never finish Martin Gilbert's fine book on the Holacaust; it overwhelms the senses, even more than 60 years later.

 

[lancer]

Brad, do you mean Richard Evans? He has done an outstanding trilogy on the Third Reich. -- Al

 

[jazzeum]

Oops, sorry Al, I meant Richard.

 

[fmethorst]

I agree with the preceding post up to a point. The Nazis weren't interested in co-operating with possible local supporters. Just as they hated the Jews, to them the Slavic people were just as inferior. They were out to eradicate them for their glorious lebenstraum. The Ukranians were disaffected from the Soviets and were eager to co-operate and be co-opted by the Nazis, seeing them as their savior from Russian (Soviet) domination but the Nazis wanted no part of that. So, it just wasn't the Jews. Let's not also forget that the Nazis were quick to take advantage of old enmities.

A good book on the topic is Harold Evans' latest book on the Third Reich at War. Unfortunately, it can only be taken in small bites because of the topic. It can overwhelm you at times. That's why I could never finish Martin Gilbert's fine book on the Holacaust; it overwhelms the senses, even more than 60 years later.

Another good, albeit difficult read is:
The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945
by Saul Friedlanger

I agree with your assertion that the Nazis viewed the Slavs as inferior but the Jews were more than that to them. They were a mortal threat more dangerous than any of Germany's national foes.

Some interesting wartime posters from various locales.

http://www.katardat.org/marxuniv/2002-SUWW2/Images/images01.html

 

[fmethorst]

Well I am sure you have better information than I do but FWIW, I have read the Germans lost about 2/3rds of thier 2700 tanks in penetrating the Russian positions and 350 of their remaining 600 tanks in the "tank battle" stage of the operation with nearly 500,000 killed, wounded or missing. That sounds like a meat grinder to me. What are the real numbers?

The numbers you are quoting look like the ones from Soviet sources. Considering that the total number of Germans killed on the entire Eastern front for the whole month of July was around 72,000 those numbers seem far too high.

Heeresgruppe Sud (units in the southern pincer) reported 3,330 dead and 20,720 wounded for the operation. Close to half of the dead and a third of the wounded were attached to II.SS-Panzerkorps.

Losses for II.SS-Panzerkorps during the operation

Unit................KIA...........WIA............MIA..............Total
LSSAH............495...........2,267..........78................2,840
Das Reich........473...........1,890..........23................2,386
Totenkopf........525...........2,187.........40.................2,752
Corps Troops....6..............34..............0..................40


Here is the August situation report (for Jul.1 to Jul.31) for Das Reich again. This time I have hilighted casualties. The headings are Dead, Wounded, Missing, Sick. The first row represents officers while the second row represents NCOs and enlisted men. These numbers are higher than the numbers listed in the chart as they include the entire month.

 

[Canadian Samurai]

Of course, how do we know the German sources are 100% accurate either? The Germans are known as being meticulous about record keeping (much more than the Russians anyway!), but as they started to lose the war one has to wonder if a little fudging started to go on on their end as well.

 

[FirstLegion]

http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-kursk-germanys-lost-victory-in-world-war-ii.htm

Interesting article that is relevant to this conversation regarding Kursk and specifically Prokhorovka. Good little read and food for thought...It essentially dispels a lot of the "myths" about German tank losses, but in a reader friendly sort of way....

 

[fmethorst]

Of course, how do we know the German sources are 100% accurate either? The Germans are known as being meticulous about record keeping (much more than the Russians anyway!), but as they started to lose the war one has to wonder if a little fudging started to go on on their end as well.

True enough, I doubt any source is 100% accurate and errors are certainly known to have occurred but I don't think the situation had degenerated to the stage where units would just make things up. I can't think of a logical reason to underrepresent your casualties either. On the flip side casualties inflicted on the enemy almost always seem to be inflated.

 

[nasirkasmani]

i remember reading "Defeat in the West" by milton shulman, an officer of the First Canadian Army Intelligence Staff. immediately after the war ended, he was tasked to interview captured German generals to find out why the Allies won.

he mentioned that rundstedt (supreme commander of German forces on the western front) revealed that in the occupied western countries (pre-Dday), Berlin effected an elaborate scheme to fool the allied intelligence.

they had 2 separate records, maps etc.

as the germans were facing shortages of men and material, the germans went at great lengths to make sure the allied Intelligence were fed exxagarated records by the French Resistance. it was hoped this will deter the expected Invasion (Dday)

in the fake records, they had records and troop movement of new divisions that are non existent, or upgraded depleted units way beyond their strength status. To fool the french resistance, they take such steps as having their troops use the same routes twice in a road march (to appear numerically bigger than they actually are)

naturally, rundstedt and his general staff had great difficulty having visibilty of the real situation, and even commented to the effect that "sometimes Berlin announces the arrival of a 'new unit' to report under my command. when the 'new unit' arrived, it was made up of an officer, his adjuntant, and 2 cooks"

 

[Spitfrnd]

http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-kursk-germanys-lost-victory-in-world-war-ii.htm

Interesting article that is relevant to this conversation regarding Kursk and specifically Prokhorovka. Good little read and food for thought...It essentially dispels a lot of the "myths" about German tank losses, but in a reader friendly sort of way....

Those are big differences. It is not so clear to me which are correct but it is interesting that the facts of even such a relatively recent event could be so elusive. The Battle of Britain has similar problems and it makes you wonder how distorted the results of some of the older battles are. More or less I think we can be somewhat sure of who won but beyond that.......?

 

[Blowtorch]

http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-kursk-germanys-lost-victory-in-world-war-ii.htm

Interesting article that is relevant to this conversation regarding Kursk and specifically Prokhorovka. ....

I did find it interesting that W-SS eastern ops. were secret until 78-81. But as for Kursk being a German victory/loss/heavy tank losses vs. light, I don't see it mattering at all except for bragging rights...which is somewhat pathetic when your cities are getting burnt to the ground one by one.

I would also strongly encourage any researcher in these matters to make it a point to get to the BA-MA in Freiburg. A lot of key stuff was returned to Germany before it got microfilmed.

This is where the language barrier really shows itself. If only a few enterprising German authors ever knew the Anglophone's thirst for details regarding these types of actions, they could sell book after book if they could write in English.

 

[Canadian Samurai]

I did find it interesting that W-SS eastern ops. were secret until 78-81. But as for Kursk being a German victory/loss/heavy tank losses vs. light, I don't see it mattering at all except for bragging rights...which is somewhat pathetic when your cities are getting burnt to the ground one by one.

Well it matters to historians in terms of whether they continue to view Kursk as the turning point of the war and blame the decision to attack the salient as the fundamental mistake that cost the Germans the chance to force a stalmate on the eastern front. When I get a chance I will have to study this battle more closely because clearly new thinking is emerging about what happened there... that said, even if Kursk was not such a disaster, it is difficult to argue that the initiative on the eastern front passed to the Soviets in summer 1943 - what then is the explanation for this? Just the increasing discrepancy in industrial output between the two powers, as well as the improving Soviet army? So the initiative shift was gradual and in some ways inevitable, and cannot be blamed on a major German battlefield mistake post-Stalingrad? This is an interesting theory. My only hesitancy is I find it fits in a bit too neatly with the "German army can do no wrong in the field" line of thinking that seems to be so popular among modern WW2 enthusiasts.

P.S. I wonder why that info about Prokhorovka was classified... too much relevance to potential future Cold War armor battles?