Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

When did Germany lose the war?

Discussion in 'WWII General' started by David Scott, Sep 30, 2011.

  1. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    About the LL to Russia :1941 was negligible .
    Total was :13.500.000 tons
    1941:360.000
    1942:2.450.000
    1943:4.800.000
    1944:6.210.000
    1945:3.670.000
    About Guderian and Moscow :what Guderian was saying,is IRRELEVANT,because he had in his Panzergruppe 4 Pzdivisions with the following strength on 4 september:
    3 PZ:41 operational tanks
    4 PZ :49
    17 PZ:38
    18 Pz:62
    If Guderian was saying that with 190 tanks,he could go to Moscow,he was an idiot .
    If one is also considering the fact that the speed of the PzD would depend on the speed of the ID,there was no chance for the Germans to reach Moscow .
    And,Guderian was NOT taking out the best part of 1 million men,whatever he may say:the Kiew operation was made possible by the cooperation of PzGr I (von Kleist) with PzGrII (Guderian),WITHOUT ignoring the crucial help of the Infantry Divisions:without them,Guderian would have taken out nothing .
     
  2. fuser

    fuser Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    4
    Fall blau was a failure after 4 weeks of its commencement only. The original plan was running on the assumption that German army will destroy red army in 4 weeks before they retreat over don and then will have strategic freedom of movement.

    They failed to do it and it was over for them......

    Beside I am not sure why you posted these useless sources which are nothing but opinions without any facts...The fact is that in original planning Stalingrad was a secondary but important objective, it was an important transport hub. Beside it was a large industrial center and would have been a good propaganda victory (yes, Politics is an important part of warfare)

    As the war developed its importance declined but it doesn't change the fact that an early capitulation of Stalingrad was crucial. You couldn't just let Red Army to have a launching pad in Caucasus for her winter offensive that Germans expected.

    What failed all these logic was Red Army's performance and not Hitler:rolleyes: which not only stalled Wehrmacht advance in stalingrad but also outsmarted them by "Operation Uranus"

    And why I am not surprised that another one of those "let's blame it all to Hitler" doesn't take in Red Army as a variable in assessing the situation...

    See LJad's post, he has done much better in discrediting this kiev vs moscow nonsense..

    but to add to it let's see another vital point which are facts and not opinions of some authors :

    By launching an early Typhoon Army Group Center would have had to penetrate deep Soviet defenses manned by a force that had not squandered its strength in fruitless offensives against German positions east of Smolensk. Furthermore, Army Group Center would have launched its offensive with a force of more than 600,000 men threatening its
    ever-extending right flank..

    So, good luck with an offensive which is logistically unsustainable, with your understrength armies with an over extended flank threatened by 600K men. And what if they decide to move in??

    Okay, I assumed wrong here. My mistake as I wrongly interpreted your post.

    Source please not of zhukhov's quote but of those numbers..

    Source??

    according to glantz soviet causalities in between October 1941 and 7 January 1942 is 658,279

    according to John Erickson soviet causalities in between October 1941 and January 1942 is 653,924

    which makes this figure of yours nothing but nonsense..

    Beside Wehrmacht had to use men that were need in Moscow direction to eliminate this pocket but even then they failed to eliminate it properly as many escaped..

    Oh and about autumn of course it hampered German advance but it was bad for both side beside it wasn't the most important thing any way..

    I am not surprised that how if it fits in with someone's narrative suddenly logistics becomes important (autumn hampering German advance) but if it is not in tandem with one's preset perspective, logistics is completely sidelined.( Guderin moving towards moscow in august irrespective of logistics.)

    Which I will repeat again was necessary..

    Of course if he says so it must be true.:rolleyes: Another piece of opinion and not fact...

    Beside I am sure Hitler was taking all the decisions in a barren room all by himself without listening to anyone..:rolleyes: FYI It wasn't only Hitle,r whole Wehrmacht apparatus thought that
     
  3. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    I also have no faith in the source of Anzac (Buell,and others),because,on P 1O7, I find the following :"Rather than produce more tanks,the Germans expanded their force by reducing the authorized strength of a PD" .Also "All PD had to give up one PZregiment to form the new PzD".
    Both statements are wrong .
    1)In september 1939,the 7 German PzD had a strength of 2030 Pz(without the Light Divisions and Heerestruppen)=an average of 290 Pz per division
    2)In may 1940,the 10 PzD had a strength of 2592 Pz,=an average of 259 Pz
    3)In june 1941,the 17 PzD had a strength of 3365 Pz =an average of 196 Pz(without heerestruppen)
    Source:Jentz
    The total number of German tanks in september 1939 was:3195,in april 1940:3379,in june 1941 5264,that means an increase of 1885 Pz in 14 months (april 1940-june 1941)
    Source:Muller-Hillebrand
    About the claim of the Pzregiments:eek:nly 6 of the 10 new PzD received an existant Pzreg,but 12,17,18,19PzD received a new reg.
    I also like to mention that a Pz D with 2 regiments is not necessarily stronger than one with 1 regiment:ex:in may 1940,the 7th PzD had 1 reg and 225 PZ,and the 10th 255 Pz with 2 reg.In june 1941,all PzD had 1 reg,but the 7thPzD had 265 Pz,and the 9th PzD 143.
    I know the origine of the wrong statement of Buell a.o.:some stupid one was writing,after the war,that Hitler doubled the number of PzD,but halved the average PzD strength and of course,a lot of lazy authors are still parotting this .
    Whatever,if Buell(a.o.) are making such elementary mistakes,IMHO,they have lost all reliability .
    I will search in Panzerleader,if I can find back the identity of the slyboots who invented this myth .
     
    ptimms likes this.
  4. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    As I expected,it was Guderian who invented the myth:panzerleader P 138:the number of PzD was soon doubled,though this involved a halving of the tank strength of each division .
     
    ptimms and fuser like this.
  5. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    I don't dispute that the initial LL to the Soviets in the last months of 1941 was minimal. But when you figure it was a start-up operation only agreed to in July, it wasn't a terrible response.

    Lend Lease had been passed well before the Nazis invaded the USSR, and soon after that moment, the US informed the USSR that they would be included into the "Lend-Lease" supply chain by the US ambassador. While it was originally done "unofficially" in early July as an extension and promise to aid the USSR in their fight with the Nazis, it wasn't confirmed as an extension of the March, 1941; "Act to Promote the Defense Of The United States", until late October.

    The Lend-Lease Act, which had been passed by the U.S. Congress (both houses) in March of 1941, gave President Roosevelt power to; "sell, transfer, lend or lease war supplies, food, machinery and services, to nations whose defense was considered vital to the security of the United States", during what would eventually become recognized as World War II.

    The program was originally intended for France, China and members of the British Empire and their own allies, but by the first week of November, 1941, the USSR had been officially included and shortly afterwards began to receive American material, to start with it was gasoline, lubricants, explosives, food-stuffs and medical supplies at first with more war material promised within 30 days.

    This came about as a result of the Three-Power Conference in Moscow between September 29th/October 1st of ’41 and was in place BEFORE the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, or Hitler declared was on the USA. With the US supplying Great Britain, and now the USSR, Hitler and the Kriegsmarine could surely not afford to allow US merchant ships to sail un-opposed. Along the line (somewhere) the loss of American shipping may just have been the "straw that broke the camel’s back" as per declaring war on the European Axis even if Hitler hadn’t already saved us the trouble.

    Pearl Harbor’s attack actually delayed the resumption of the promised war material, but the food-stuffs, clothing, transport vehicles, and communications gear continued even as we struggled to re-supply our own forces. However, on February 11, 1942 this was sent to Stalin:

    "SECRET" AND PERSONAL MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT TO Mr. STALIN

    For January and February our shipments have included and will include 449 light tanks, 408 medium tanks, 244 fighter planes, 24 B-25's, and 233 A-20's.

    I realize the importance of getting our supplies to you at the earliest possible date and every effort is being made to get shipments off.

    The reports here indicate that you are getting on well in pushing back the Nazis.

    Although we are having our immediate troubles in the Far East, I believe that we will have that area reinforced in the near future to such an extent that we can stop the Japs, but we are prepared for some further setbacks."
     
  6. Tristan Scott

    Tristan Scott Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    41
    An excerpt of Hitler's War Directive 21:

    "Once the battle south or north of the Pripet Marshes have been fought, the pursuit is to be undertaken with the following objectives:

    In the south the rapid occupation of the economically important Donetz Basin, in the north the speedy capture of Moscow. This city is a political and economical center, and is a main railway junction point."
     
  7. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    This is not invalidating my point,it is fortifying it :the occupation of the Donetz Basin and the capture of Moscow,would be possible only,if the Red Army was eliminated;after the elimination ,the Donetz and Moscow would be captured by a PURSUIT ,not by bitterfighting.
    But,before the end of august,it was obvious that the Red Army was NOT eliminated :Leningrad was not captured(and Leningrad had priority),AGC was blocked at Smolensk,and AGS was in big difficulties .The battle south/north of the Pripet Marshes was not finished,the whole plan had failed,although the Germans had lost more than 400000 men (200000 in august) .There was a strategic crisis .
    The question was :what to do ?There was only one solution,and Hitler and the generals agreed:restart the whole thing(on a smal scale:Mini Barbarossa):attacking direction Moscow,using Moscow as a lure,hoping that the Soviets would engage their last reserves to defend the city .
    The only problem was :when ? 1 september,or 1 october ?
     
  8. ptimms

    ptimms Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2011
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    98
    LJAd is right to discredit the idea Germany halved the Panzer strength of existing Divisions to create new ones.

    New Divisons.

    11th got the 15th Pz Reg from 5 Panzer.
    12th got the new 29th Pz reg.
    13th got 4th Pz Reg from 2 Panzer.
    14th got 36th Pz Reg from 4 Panzer.
    15th got 8th Pz Reg from 10 Panzer.
    16th got 2nd Pz Reg from 1 Panzer.
    17th got the new 39th Pz Reg.
    18th got Pz Brigade 1 with 2 Reg (18th and 28th with 4 battalions of snorkel tanks not needed to invade UK anymore).
    19th got the new 27th Pz Reg.
    20th got the new 21st Pz Reg.

    So actually half the new Divisions had new Panzer Regiments if you include tha fact that the Pz brigade was an independant unit and not part of a Division.

    Guderian is a weasel and says what suits Guderian it was never his fault remember.
     
  9. Carronade

    Carronade Ace Patron  

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,594
    Likes Received:
    480
    Guderian's half right about halving - six of the ten panzer divisions had two panzer regiments and lost one, five of them went to five of the ten new divisions, the sixth, 5th PzRgt from 3 PzDiv, went to the newly formed 5th Light Division in Africa, which later became 21st Panzer.

    The numbers of tanks were skewed because the existing units had never reached their intended strength. A panzer regiment of two battalions was supposed to have exactly 200 tanks, 96 per battalion (four companies of 22, 8 in battalion headquarters) plus 8 in regimental HQ. I'm not aware of any regiment actually achieving this strength - anyone? - although Steel Inferno credits at least one SS panzer battalion with 96 tanks. Production failed to keep up with the expansion of the force, either prewar or during wartime.

    On the other hand, the other major mechanized armies, which enjoyed adequate tank production, also reduced the proportion of tanks in their armored units. Numbers of infantry might or might not increase, but the ratio of tanks to infantry decreased to what combat experience showed to be a better balance. Britain and the United States halved their tank units just as Germany did - 2 brigades > 1, 6 battalions (in 2 regiments) > 3 (no regiment). The Red Army supplemented its tank corps with mechanized corps having slighty fewer tanks and significantly more infantry. All of these organizations featured around 200 medium tanks, as the new-style panzer division was intended to.

    Personally I think the 96-tank battalion was oversized, but the division fielded approximately the same number as the Americans or British did with 3 battalions*. German and British divisions had four infantry battalions, the American armored division three, so the balance (at full strength) was comparable.

    * Cavalry and Yeomanry used "regiment" for a battlaion-sized unit.
     
  10. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    going from 2 panzerregiments to 1 does not mean that the panzerstrength was halved:as I already stated,the strength of the panzerregiments was varying :in may 1940 PrReg31 (5PD) had 160 Pz,Pzregiment 11(6Pz) and 25 (7Pz) had 223 Pz.In may 1940:5PD with 2 reg had 327 tanks,10 PD with 2 reg:255 and 6PD with 1 reg:223.
    In may 1940,the 10 PD had 16 Pzregiments with 2592 Pz;in june 1941,the 17 PD had 17 regiments with 3365 Pz.
    In may 1940,the average strength of a Pzregiment was 162 Pz,in june 1941,it was 198.
    In 1941,some divisions were almost halved(1PD from 276 to 145)but the strength of 7PD was INCREASING from 225 to 265
     
  11. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    To make things even more complicated:let's take the 5 PzD who lost a Pzregiment :1,2,4,5 and 10.
    Their strength decreased ....from may 1940 till june 1941:
    1PD: from 276 to 145
    4PD: from 314 to 176
    10PD:from 255 to 182
    2+ 5 PR are not counted ,because they were not operational in june 1941
    But,if we are taking 25 june 1940,the situation is different:in may/june 1940,the Germans lost some 30 % of their tanks,if we assume that these 3 divisions lost each 30 % and received no replacements,than would1PD have 200 tanks,4 PD 220 tanks,and 10 PD 180 tanks,and the decrease would be smaller .
    And,if we are counting the date these PD lost one of their Pzregiments,(2 august,15 august,11 november)?
    Last point,losing one of the two Pzregiments,does not mean losing 50 % of the Pzstrength:eek:n 2 august,1PD lost Pzreg 2;as we don't know the strength of that Pzreg,(it could be 30 %,or 60%),we can't draw conclusions .It is also possible that on 2 august,1PD lost all its tanks(receiving later new ones),or no tanks at all .
    After the battle of Citadelle,the SSPanzer Corps lost the LSSAH(which was moving to Italy),but NOT ONE TANK,because the LSS left behind all its tanks,receiving new ones in Germany .All we know is that between may 1940 and june 1941,the strength of the field units increased by 763 tanks,and that meanwhile,the Germans lost at least 714 tanks(may/june 1940),without the losses in the Balkans and NA.That means that the field units received at least 1477 tanks(probably more:I am not counting the 200 tanks of the Heerestruppen in june 1941,I would not be surprised if the total was 2000)
     
  12. Neutral

    Neutral Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's not a conspiracy theory, you research it, and come back with what you find, a deal with Socialist Germany was much more suited to the allies, than any deal with Communist Russia, they were hoping Russia would fall, to Germany, with all communist Jewish people murdered, but when it became clear it was not happening they, withdrew support, check out the help U.S companies, and big business gave Hitler, to build the Nazi party
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Support_Hitler_US.html

    This is just one site on it................................ Read the chapter on attempts to try and bring about murdering all Jewish people in America

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

    Here is another one, they were Klu klux klan People.
     
  13. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    1)"Thirdworldtraveler" is a bunch of nonsens,about failed fricks :"however,none of these movements were ever taken seriously ":mentioned by "Third worldtraveler"
    2)About "the Guardian":it mentions aso the folowing :The Anti-Defamation League said the following :thre rumours about the alleged "Nazi-ties" of the late P.Bush are untenable and politically motivated.P.Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathiser .
    3About 'Read the chapter on attempts to try and bring about all Jewish people in Amerika":you are making a very serious accusation =that before WWII,attempts were made to exterminate the American Jews.And,your only "proof" is :read the chapter.Where can we find that chapter ?
    It is on you to produce that chapter .
    And,you never have wondered why only now,after more than 70 years,this "story" has come to surface ?
    Where are the names of the culprits ? How would they do it ? By building an American Auschwitz in Idaho ? How would they arrest and deport the Jews ?How would they gain power ?Etc,etc .....
     
  14. ANZAC

    ANZAC Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    20
    Whether you think they're useless or not, they're sources from researched Historians & authors, something I've seen precious little of from yourself. .....

    Yes Stalingrad was a secondary target that if able to be taken quickly off the march would have been, but Hitler lost the best chance to do that when changed the original plan & sent Hoths Panzers further South to assist Kleist at the Don.

    No it's not a fact that an early capitulation of Stalingrad was crucial.
    Originally [and as you yourself said] Stalingrad was a SECONDARY target,it was to be brought within artillery range but only captured if it could be quickly taken, but as I posted above Hitler stuffed up.

    Kleist said as far as the operations went Stalingrad was just another name on the map.

    By the time Hoth got sent back to Stalingrad after his wild goose chase down South as unneeded assistance to Kleist, [thanks to Adolf] the chance for a quick capture was gone, but Hitler decided he now wanted to take the city & finally sent Paulis in as Russian reinforcements came on the scene to turn it into something the Russians preferred, a close hand to hand fight in the city with the Panzers mainly nullified, instead as Hitler originally planned, to bring Stalingrad into artillery range if it couldn't be quickly taken, & keep the Panzers & Paulis as a blocking force.


    Not sure I should do your work for you, but what the heck, always willing to help out a poster who's a little short of the facts.
    My source [not my opinion, take note] is Ericksons 'The Road to Stalingrad' page 219. Which makes me think you haven't read Erickson.
    Have you?

    Well someone's figures are CERTAINLY nonsense..... but they ain't mine.

    Russian losses during the three month period you mention were actually 1.6 MILLION & thats according to Glantz, which corresponds closely with the total Soviet casualties for the forth quarter of '41, thats October to December, of 1,656,517, by Krivoshev "Soviet casualties and combat losses in the 20th century' Page 260/61."

    Those figures of 650,000 [which you claim are nonsense ] were for the battles on the Vyazma/Bryansk front sourced from "John Erickson's 'The Road to Stalingrad" page 219." and also backed up by "Soviet casualties and combat losses in the 20th century' by Col Gen GF Krivoshev."

    Funny isn't it, the first time you use sources instead of your own opinion to back up your claims, you put your foot in your mouth.

    But much worse for the Germans who relied on rapid moving Panzers to cut through the Soviet armies which they did in perfect weather [done in just 3/4 days at Vyazma/Bryansk] the Panzers lost all momentum in the sea of mud with the Autumn rains, & with logistics already straining to keep up in fine weather, virtually came to a stop in the mud.

    The Soviets on the other hand had the railway system behind them with feeder lines to the front using 300,000 wagons in Moscow to quickly shuttle what men & supplies they could scrape up forward.
    Both Soviet commanders on the spot, Koniev & Zhukov, said they couldn't stop the Panzers. ['If' the weather held.]
    So for a few weeks it WAS the most important thing.
     
  15. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    "Neutral",why are you continuing to post nonsens? Is it trolling ?
    Ex.:the "mysterious "death of senator Lundeen in an aircraft accident (with 2 FBI agents):this is insinuating that the aircraft was sabotaged by the Nazis/the FBI.
    Ex:claiming that Viereck was condemned as a Nazi agent,and,because he was a friend of Lundeen,Lundeen was a Nazi agent .The truth is that Viereck was not condemned because he was a Nazi agent,what Viereck was doing was LEGAL.But,the Foreign Agents Registration Act (1938) stated that agents representing the interests of Foreign Powers had to be properly identified to the American public,and had to register .Viereck was condemned because he did not register .
    Btw,what the stupid one who was writing these nonsens,did not mention,was that Lundeen was a senator of the "non right wing" Farmer Party .That he was an isolationist,so was the DEMOCRATIC senator of Montana,J.Wheeler :maybe also a Nazi spy/sympathizer ?
     
  16. Colonel FOG

    Colonel FOG Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2011
    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    22
    Oh my... Germany LOST???
    Ach, du Scheiße!
    Why didn't anyone tell me?
     
  17. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    About Vyazma /Briansk,Anzac is making the classic mistake of being fixated on the Soviet losses,not on the remaining Soviet strength/German strength :if the Germans defeated the Soviets in "good tank weather",why were they not marching on Moscow ,after the victory of Vyazma/Briansk ? Saying that immediately after the battle of Viazma/Briansk,the "good tank weather" disappeared ,to make place for the Rasputitsa,and that this saved Moscow,is a suspicious explanation,better it is an excuse .At the end of october,the defense of Moscow was already been reinforced by at least 13 ID and 5 tank brigades ,some of them already being committed on 13 october .
    About Erickson,I should not recommend him,because he is outdated,and he used Soviet sources who were (IMHO) not very reliable .
     
  18. Neutral

    Neutral Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did not write this, article,here is the paragraph below, this accusations came up during a court case read it, their is evidence and plenty of it the KKK were, and are still very powerfull
    this is the paragraph.



    [h=4]Another Fascist group, the Khaki Shirts, was started by Major L.I. Powell, a former aide to William Pelley in 1932. The Khaki Shirts were completely American in their fascism, and even encouraged Jews to become members. Like Father Coughlin, though, anti-Semitism soon became part of their program. Art Smith, a leader of the Khaki Shirts, once accused an anti-Fascist of murder, and was corroborated by Samuel Wein, one of his "Jewish generals". When Wein later recanted his testimony, he claimed in court that Smith had threatened "he would kill all the Jews in America" if Wein didn't cooperate. "Did you believe that?" the judge asked Wein with incredulity. "Well, I didn't want to be the first," Wein replied. (Thomas 1934, 192)[/h] [h=4][/h]
     
  19. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    You said there was an ATTEMPT to murder all the Jews in America.Now you are saying that Wein claimed that Smith threatened to kill all the Jews in the US.And,is there any proof that Smith was saying,what Wein claimed he said ?
    I hope that you are seeing the difference .
     
  20. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    It's substantial enough for a reasonable person. Proof is impossible since we are in dealing with a what if in essence.
    The reasoning is good in this alternative as well. There is morivation and you have no more proof that it was not "fulfillment of Imperail Russia's dream" than I do that it was. I've raised the possiblity and you've done nothing substansive to question it.
    Or not. Just because you can't see the parrallels doesn't mean tha they aren't there.
    Not irrelevant and you haven't show that the dynamics are all that relevant.
    You don't think the Imperial dreams weren't in at least part due to the strategic situation? I think you've created a false dicotomy.
    Ah but I have. Again your refusal to recognize it as such doesn't invalidate it. What refusal by the way are you talking about?
    Different to some extent but not completely by any means.
     

Share This Page