Eastern front : won from the start ?

So Hitler was an "ignorant corporal" and you are the man to pronounce on his abilities. Care to tell us how many nations you've conquered in your lifetime? Sorry to make fun, Miller, but pride goeth before a fall, as they say. You, like Za Rodinu, need to stop viewing the world and history through partisan glasses. Yes, Hitler made a number of mistakes and certainly badly misjudged the situation in Russia. (And I agree completely with you that the key was recognizing that Russia was not like any western European country that he had so easily dispatched in the years prior.) However, he wasn't just some ignorant corporal; no "ignorant corporal" could have done what he did, often in spite of opposition from many of his generals. Give the man the credit he deserves and then your criticism of his abilities will sound all the more erudite. Simply shouting out the epithets you've learned from others merely shows that your understanding of WWII hasn't progressed beyond a basic level.

Your claims is contradicted by the fact that in the first months of the war the Soviet armies were soundly beaten by the Germans; in the summer of 1941 the Soviets exhibited little of the will and perseverance that you extoll. The Germans certainly did have poor foresight of the Russian war, I'll grant you that, but they were not generally incompetent and nor was Soviet will and perseverance the only reason they won the war. Soviet will was extraordinary but they didn't win through willpower alone.

 

Never the less I stand by my point. It wasn't because of Hitler that the German army was so successful. Hitler was giving the orders, not executing them. It wasn't his blood being spilled on the battlefield. His homeland wasn't in ruin. The only good thing that came out of Hitler was restoring Germany to some degree of order after the hardships of the Versailles Treaty and the Weimar Republic. It was the Generals like Manstein, Guderian, Rommel, Von Runstedt, and the soldiers dying at the front that kept the war going for as long as it did. It would have gone on for longer if Hitler had left the decisions to his generals.

I will not give credit to a man who caused so much hardship to the millions of Germans who fought and died for his war. I give the credit to the German soldier.

Well yes, because the initial first two months or so of Barbarossa were a success. The Reds were caught with their pants down. Didn't last long though.

Incompetent is a word I would never use to describe the German Army from 1939-1945. In my opinion I would go as far as calling it one of if not the most effective army in the history of man. One on one the average Landser who underwent full training (more in the first half of the war) was superior to any other soldier in the world. Many of the training techniques my father went through in Marine Corps OCS he told me were derived from Wehrmacht infantry tactics used during WWII.

And yes you are correct. It was not only the will and perseverance that won the war for the Soviets. The Soviet population was quite a bit bigger than that of Germany. That is more people to build planes, tanks, and other weapons. What it really comes down to is the fact that Stalin could afford to lose a lot more Russians than Hitler could of Germans.

Yeah, a good chunk of 'em fought because they were just as afraid of their own bullets. Kill a Facsist or be killed by a kommisar.

May be due to the fact that I am still in high school and have only been studying this war for a few years. Forgive my lack of intelligence. Some day hopefully I will have acquired as much knowledge of the subject that many here posess.

 

So now you are contradicting yourself. The Germans DID have experience in the Russian winter and on more then one occasion. In fact even the Teutonic Knights experienced the cold weather on April 5, 1242. Germany was also aware of other countries experience with cold weather in Russia. The fact that the Germans had all of this information and personal experience and not forseeing as to what may happen shows not only were they incompetent but also very arrogant ( not very surprising from the supreme beings which they thought they were ) thinking they could accomplish something that till this day has never been done by any of the conquering nations including themselves, which was conquer a unified Russia not to mention in 6 months.

Absolutely... I credit him with invading numerous countries, with the destruction of thousands of towns, villages and cities. I will credit him with the deaths of millions of innocent people and millions more left in misery. I will also credit him for leaving his very own country in ruins and the brilliant speeches which he gave while at the same time preaching hate, which till this day is an insperation to all hate groups around the world.

Oh and sorry I forgot, he was a good painter.

I would also say strongly overestimating their own.

This is mostly due to Germans launching a surprise attack. Remember the Russians ( speaking of the average soldiers and officers ) simply did not imagine that Germany would attack especially considering that less then 2 years earlier signed a non-aggression pact. Also the fact that the Russians had no exerience in German captivity. Last but not least the fact that in the beginning of the war the Russian soldier in some cases didnt even have a gun, complicated his efforts in destroying the unexpected overwhelming odds against him.

What I find interesting is that more Russians were captured in the first 6 months of the war, then in the next 3 years.

Marieburg, with all of the disadvantages that you have accredited the Germans with having on the Eastern front, I fail to see any of the disadvanteges given to the Russian soldier, such as starvation, why is this?
From what I understand, the Russian soldier had a lot more problems to deal with then just winter, mud or long supply lines.

 

Quite frankly I’m beginning to feel your tone is becoming a tad too aggressive for my taste. I’m not used to this kind of attitude in this forum, so I’m not going to fuel this for much long.

> MB - I'm sorry you don't like the facts, but just because they contradict your pet theory doesn't invalidate them.
> MB - Again, your logic is seriously flawed.
> MB - …your claims were so easily shown to be baseless
> MB - …your arguments are so easily dismantled…

This is the kind of tone I was saying above I am not used in this forum.

> MB - … Clearly you are wrong since the earlier campaigns do not exhibit the claims that you are trying to level against them.
> MB - …So now you admit that the Germans were, at least in the French campaign, able to follow through on their plans. You now contradict your earlier words.

What happened here was that the Germans did quite well on the smaller campaigns but then seemed to be overwhelmed when they had bigger fish to fry, say a variant of the Peter Principle applied to military organizations. As is generally known, the Peter Principle states "In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence". In the current instance, in general terms a military organization will be fully competent to it’s task but problem will be when the task becomes too big for it’s capacity. That was what happened here, the Germans performed very well up to the moment they encountered an enemy too big for their competence level.

>> ZR - The Germans were victorious in Europe for two years as you say but these two years were not defined by continuous campaigning, there were large intervals of inactivity between each spurt, the Polish campaign took five weeks followed by the invasion of Norway six months later.

>MB - Of course these two years were not a period of continuous campaigning … So, I have to ask, what was your point here? In no way does this fact cast any aspersions on German abilities.

This was written in reply to your “Your hypothesis doesn't stand up to the fact that Germany was continuously victorious for two years over almost all of the land armies of Europe.” of May 11th. I was showing trying to say that as those two years were not continuous (what does Sitzkrieg mean?) your sentence sounds like a fallacy.

> MB - …The Germans were quite good at campaigning. The only place they ran into problems was in Russia. So what was it about Russia that explains why the Germans lost? …

As I said above, the task became too big for their ability.

>MB - The rasputitsa always helps out the nation on defence for the simple reason that it slows offensive movements down to nearly a halt...

While defensive movements keep running as if nothing happens?

>MB - In 1941 it most definitely helped out the Russians because not only were they on the defence, they were on the defence just outside of Moscow.

Operation Typhoon was launched when the frost came making ground passable again. The mud season had already passed, so the mud excuse does not work at least for this phase.

>MB - Their supply lines were many times shorter than the German ones, and the German ones were bad to begin with as they had to transfer rail lines to their own gauge and repair transportation routes that had already been fought over and damaged. It is also well known that Russian vehicles and weaponry were often designed to function in the bitter cold of the Russian winter while the German vehicles and weaponry were not built with such winters in mind.

Again, is it a mark of competence not to prepare for these extreme weather and bad infrastructure conditions and their implications on equipment?

MB - Now, I agree that the Germans seriously miscalculated how long it was going to take to defeat the Russians and their ability to absorb crushing defeats. However, this mistake in no way demonstrates a general incompetency amongst Germans.

Well, at least it shows they were optimists, or had a misplaced sense of optimism…

>> ZR - Now concerning Winter… There simply is no possibility at all the Germans were not aware of the meaning of the Russian winter.

> MB - There is a big difference between being aware of something and being actually prepared for it. The Germans knew about winter but hadn't planned on fighting a war in it and so did not have equipment or clothing that could function properly in winter weather.

Ah, so they had not planned to fight in winter… That’s a pity, because winter usually happens. And what conclusion do you extract from this? Optimism or not thinking things through? Negligence at least for not considering that on the minimum on the caution side operations “might” extend for more than a few good weather months.

> MB - The Germans didn't just hope for the best but their problem was underestimating Russia; its size, its ability to absorb defeats, its weather etc.

Again, what do you call this disregard from careful, responsible planning? Competence? Genius?

> MB - Given how you've already been seen contradicting your own earlier pronouncements and how your arguments are so easily dismantled I would be more cautious in talking about incompetence and hubris if I were you. Try to be less partisan and see the world in more than just black and white and you'll have a better understanding of why things happened the way they did in the past.

Yes? What I am trying to show is the Germans were not the bunch of geniuses and Übermenschen popular literature shows them to be. Others will remain fascinated by what Goebbels myth machine made them look like. By the way, I find Dr. Joseph Goebbels is the most competent of all Nazis, his work still thrives after more than sixty years.

Me, less partisan? If I may quote Matthew 7,5 at you, “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.”

 

Yeah, like the way they gave up Best Litovsk, no will or perseverance there. Or in fact the number of troops who did actually stand by their posts, civilians who flocked to the recruiting offices or defended Leningrad. To be honest, I'd love yo see you show as much will and perseverance when you face a surprise attack and are ordered not to respond.

 

That is one of my favorites. Whenever i get mad at someone, i use that verse to cool myself down. In essence, we all are the "hypocrite". If I may quote Luke 18, "....No one is good but One, that is GOD".
Another one I like is John 1, 29, "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said: Behold! The lamb of GOD who takes away the sin of the world!"

 

Off topic but I had to interject one of MY favorites.......

And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, [. . .] Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. Daniel 3: 23-25.

AND

Ammunition for Pro-Lifers:

And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost [. . .]. Luke 1: 41

 

Ironcross, you're quite a philosopher! Veering even farther off:

Lao-Tseu: "Do not despise the snake for having no horns, for who may say it will not become a Dragon."

 

I always liked 'blessed are the greek...'

Faust: 'as long as people are so stupid, the devil need not be clever'

 

Knowing the truth is depressing, because the truth is depressing. I can never enjoy things with an innocent heart again.

 

Just think how much more we know today what happened 50 years ago ...so how much do we really know what happens today really...??? Now that is depressing....or could we handle the truth?

 

And this is where my signature comes in!

 

So my advice for you is read your Bible, and dies prepared. No matter how good or bad the contemporary is, you will not see it for too long. But no matter how good or bad the after death is, it will be eternal. Since the eternal outweighs the 40-60 years we still might have，therefore, stop struggling for a good living, start preparing for a good death.

 

Oh dear, here we go...

 

Hopefully around at least another 15 years ( of course every year appreciated ) and possibly several closed archives will be opened and more WW2 secrets will be revealed...

 

Miller,

I was quite impressed with this last post of yours. For someone in High School you definitely have a good grasp of a lot of this. Sorry if my earlier comments sounded harsh but I guess one of my pet peeves is the kneejerk reaction I see in a lot of people to WWII subjects, especially those involving Hitler. It is far too easy to just say Hitler was an idiot; I have no use for such uncritical thinking and some of your earlier comments sounded to me a little like that. In this last post of yours, however, you demonstrated understanding a fair bit more in depth than a lot of your elders. As the Aussies say, Good on you.

There is more than enough credit, and blame, to go around when it comes to the Germans losing WWII. Hitler certainly takes the lion's share of the blame for the simple fact that he threw Germany into offensive war after offensive war before it was ready for the long campaign. However, Hitler does deserve at least some credit for the earlier victories; even Hitler's own generals agreed to this, and one of the biggest reasons why the average German soldier supported him up to the end was the belief that because he had shown successful leadership earlier in the war that he should be trusted to figure things out at the end. Hitler's blood wasn't being shed, that is true, but neither was the blood of his generals and you are willing to give them credit. I recognize that Hitler was a very nasty character but that doesn't mean that we need to sink down to the level of neo-Nazi racists and refuse to give credit to those we personally dislike.

This is the one part of your past post that I really didn't care much for. It suggests your thinking, though at times enlightened, stumbles at the same point so many of your colleagues falter on. One of the most liberating things in the world is being able to give deserved credit to your enemies, even those you hate the most. Why? Because then no one can accuse you of having a narrow or closed mind. It demonstrates that you can indeed be objective. And don't we all want our own views to be considered objective? I know I wouldn't care for it if people thought I was never able to think above my own emotions.

Excellent paragraph, showing you can give credit, even to the enemy. A number of people here could do well to follow your lead.

Excellent summary statement; that last sentence really hits the nail on the head.

Anyway, I appreciate your comments, Miller. I think we now know where we both stand.

 

You'll have to explain how you see me contradicting myself. Can you clarify what your specific point was here? Thanks.

As I told Miller, it is a sign of an enlightened person, someone whose reasoning is not held in thrall to his emotions, when that person can give deserved credit to someone, even his worst and most hated enemy. If this really is all you think you can credit Hitler with you clearly will never properly understand WWII.

I agree with you on that; the Germans certainly overestimated themselves at the same time that they underestimated Russia and the Russians. And it cost them the war.

So you can come up with a bunch of reasons why the Russians were unprepared for war. In a similar manner, one can come up with a bunch of reasons why Germany was unprepared for a winter war in Russia. I don't think that this means that we should call either of these groups incompetent as their history through the war demonstrates solidly that neither side was incompetent. They both made mistakes and paid for them heavily. Russia could afford to take a lot more casualties due to its mistakes than Germany could, and ultimately that turned the tide in its favor.

If you are asking why I am not defending the competency of the Russians as much as the Germans here I would have to point out that I am responding to other people's portrayals of the abilities (and chances) of the Germans. In case you haven't noticed, you aren't the only one here effectively arguing for the Russian side. I'm just trying to even the playing field so to speak and point out that it isn't as easy as simply saying that the victors had more spirit and ability than the ultimate losers. The situation is more complex. It usually is.

 

The Germans did phenomenally well in France and I think upon reflection you'll agree that you can't call that a "small fish". The Germans also did very well in Russia until the bad weather arrived, another fact that undermines your position. I'm sorry Za Rodinu, but your argument just doesn't work.

I still fail to see what your original point was in making that comment about the two years not being characterized by continuous campaigning? I made the comment that Germany was continuously victorious for the first two years of the war over a number of different armies of Europe. What was your point in noting that there were breaks between the various campaigns? How does that undermine my position? My point was that since Germany won campaign after campaign for the first two years your claim that the German army was fundamentally incompetent doesn't stand up to scrutiny. How does the fact that the campaigns did not occur immediately one following the other with no break affect my point?

But surely you will admit they did pretty decently in the first months of Barbarossa. The large numbers of Russian soldiers and tanks and planes were not too much "for their ability". Only later on, towards the end of 1941 did they stop making progress and began themselves to suffer casualties on similar orders to what the Russians had been experiencing since the beginning. If the Russian campaign was truly beyond the ability of the Germans how do you explain the fact that the Germans were so successful in the first months of 1941? The task of finishing off the Russians indeed was too much for the Germans to accomplish, at least in the time that they had in 1941, before bad weather neutralized their advantages.

The rasputitsa provides time for the defence to prepare earth works and local, tactical defence. Earth works don't help offensively, I'm sure you realize. And you aren't such a novice as to fail to realize that a delay in an in-progress offensive is going to help the defence far more than the offense. But I know you're just being argumentative so I'll drop your charade.

Typhoon started on September 30, before the mud or the frosts came into play, so you're factually incorrect. In fact, the Germans made considerable progress in Operation Typhoon until the rasputitsa set in and slowed movement down to a crawl. Then, when the cold set in and froze the mud solid, the cold was as much a hindrance as the German vehicles and weapons weren't designed to function in such conditions.

It was a serious miscalculation but as I have pointed out a number of times now, the German army did extremely well on all other fronts up to this point of the war so the claim of incompetence doesn't stick. Clearly the German army was not generally incompetent. On the contrary, they were one of the most competent and successful armies of the age.

Finally something we can agree on! Yep, the Germans were far too overconfident and their overconfidence almost certainly stemmed from the fact that they had been so successful in all of their other campaigns up to that point. They thought they could march over the Soviet Union and while they were quite successful early on, the Russian campaign finally did them in.

Winter always happens but in 1939 Germany finished off Poland before it became a factor in the campaign and in 1940 France was finished off before winter became an issue. The Germans planned on finishing off Russia before General Winter was mobilized against the invader.

The problem was that Hitler thought that his massive attack would simply overwhelm the Soviet Union and that by crashing in the door the "whole rotten edifice" would come crumbling down. It didn't, and so the war dragged on, and in any long war the bigger country has the advantage.

A fatal miscalculation. Hitler was wrong about the Soviet Union collapsing from the initial Barbarossa attack and Germany wasn't prepared for a drag out, long war with a nation twice its size. In this respect I do see a fruitful comparison with the American army in Iraq. The US army could (and did) defeat the Iraqi army. However, the political outcome of the campaign wasn't what the American politicians who took the country into the war had predicted. And so here we are over four years after the war ended and the insurgency hasn't been quelled. Bush and his hawks thought that the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms but they were wrong. However, this in no way means that the American army is fundamentally incompetent. On the contrary, it is the most lethal fighting force the world has ever seen. Likewise, with the Eastern Front in WWII, the German army was competent. However, Germany's singular politician, Hitler, seriously miscalculated the effect of his attack on Russia. The Soviet Union didn't disintegrate and so it took much longer to advance into Russia than predicted and that meant that the weather became a factor and allowed the Soviets to gather their forces in front of Moscow and defend the capital. And after that the greater Russian population and production was all in favor of the Soviet Union and spelled doom for Germany.

It is sad that you can't recognize your own propaganda for what it is, no more accurate than that of Goebbels but a lot less effective. The Germans weren't all a bunch of geniuses or supermen but their army was better than almost any other of the time. Their record for success early on in the war proves your claim of incompetence to be baseless. Bereft of evidential support for your biased claims all you're left with is rhetoric. In that, at least, your propaganda does resemble that of Goebbels.

Quoting Bible verses may impress some, but not me. If you want to claim that I'm a hypocrite then perhaps you can show how I have acted as one. I've never claimed that the Russians were incompetent; all I've done is counter the claims by you and a few others that the Germans were incompetent by pointing out how the facts don't support your argument. If you can prove me wrong with the facts and demonstrate fundamental incompetence on the part of the Germans, I'll accept your argument. Facts are primary, not rhetoric.

 

From Guderian's journal: ""the offensive on Moscow failed.... We underestimated the enemy's strength, as well as his size and climate. Fortunately, I stopped my troops on December 5, otherwise the catastrophe would be unavoidable."

 

You see now this seems odd to me, for someone who is defending the Germans to then point out that they attacked an enemy they were unprepared to deal with. I also like the reference to climate, a reflection of a popular misconception arising from the fact that in the west most people understand the eastern front from the accounts of disgruntled German officers who were convinced that they were stopped by winter, hoards of Siberians and well equipped Soviet troops.

The thing people often forget is that in 1941 many of the Soviet soldiers at the front were no better equipped than their German counterparts. Nore do Russians have some inate ability to survive the cold (contrary to the stupid ideas of being 'closer to nature' that appear on so many German memoirs and western intelligence resources).