The myths of WWII (Eastern Europe)

And,unless history teaching in the US is even worse than I was thinking (very improbable),you MUST have heard of Bryan, populism,the revolt of the farmers against Rockefeller and Morgan,whose monopolies were threatening free enterprise and free trade .

Again :the fact that some one with a common sense was obeying the orders of Hitler,does not prove that there was anything socialist in the Third Reich,unless you would say that Spain of Franco,where the common sense was dictating to obey the Caudillo, was a socialist state .
If we are using your definitions,there is to day on earth NO state with a capitalist economy .

 

Germany was national socialist
The SU was a people's democracy
Canada is ruled by the Progressive Conservatives (I must admit:The Canadians have a special sense of humour)
The PM of Britain (R.Macdonald) between 1931-1935 belonged to the national socialist party (sorry:national labour)
And,to draw conclusions from this would be very stupid,unless you are thinking that the Republicans are not democrats,or that the Democrats are monarchists ,or,that,because apples are not oranges,they are not fruits .
And,in Holland,there is a Socialist Party and a Labour Party,and in Belgium,the New Flemish Alliance,and ,I could continue with the French political parties,but,no one would understand anything (as no one in France does understand anything).
Do you have consulted ONE work about the economy of the Third Reich?A good one would be "the Wages of Destruction"(Chapter 4 artners:the Regime and German business),Do you know anything about the role of Schacht ?
Do you know that,a few days ago,a BILLIONAIRE was elected to be a member of the politbureau of the Chinese COMMUNIST party ?
Of course,it is much easier to claim that Germany had a socialist economy,because it was ruled by the national socialist party (what,of course,is wrong,the role of the national socialist party was negligible:Germany was ruled by Hitler)

 

About finding some authority who is agreeing with the statement that the economy of the Third Reich was a capitalist one, why not looking at the following:after Hitler became Reichschancellor on 31 january 1933,he received for the elections of march the following amounts from the following capitalist organizations:
IG Farben :400000 RM
Deutsche Bank:200000 RM
The Association of the mining industry :200000 RM
etc,etc...
This is proving that these people were convinced that Hitler would not transformate the German economy in a socialist one .
The source:the Wages of Destruction P 100.

 

Economies today are different than they have ever been!!! Exactly what the paper argued. That the US is no longer a capitalist economy it is a mixed economy and the same is for the EU. There have been numerous leaders in US history that have either moved towards capitalism or away from it. Right now government regulation is so involved that america can hardly be considered anything less than a mixed economy. Adam Smith talked about what form of economy he thought was best and that was what came to be known later as capitalism and classical economics. The Nazi German economy was regulated by Hitler. Hitler said that people should be allowed to run their business as long as it is for the benefit of the state and not themselves. And Hugo Junkers is proof that Germany was not capitalist. That has never happened in the US. Please name an incident where the US seized property without due process because somebody refused to produce what the government wanted. The US government can not legally do so. The US can influence production by taxing, subsidies, or other deals. That is the difference. You clearly do not understand. No historian or researcher would agree with you. If you knew enough about the farmers revolt then you would know that those farmers willingly agreed to teh homestead act in an effort to acquire land on the great plains, that the farmers made a mistake by choosing to engage in single money crop, that farmers did not keep up with the changing economy and lacked the education to successfully compete in a business environment. " Increasingly, the need for business-like practices arose for success at farming, but many farmers lacked the necessary business skills, and blamed others for their failures, such as the Railroad, the bankers, or the federal government." The farmers revolt was a bunch of uneducated peoples who were mad that they werent smart enough to compete against the businesses that ran them out of business. Btw there have been several farmers revolts in america for various reasons. Your modern arguments are invalid as the world was forever changed by world war II.

 

Im tired of arguing with you. please simply give your definition of capitalism, and then show how Nazi Germany displayed this.

 

I am tired of arguing with you:give some proofs that the German economy was transformed from a capitalist one in 1933,to a socialist one in 1939.

 

I'm tired of reading about economies of different countries in the myths of the eastern front thread.....

Lets move on gentlemen.

 

That's a very wise proposal (as to be expected)
Maybe,when moving,we could broach an other topic :the Russian winteroffensive of 1941-1942
Immediately af ter the war,it was claimed that the combination of the strongest winter in 100 years,200 years,etc and the Austrian corporal almost destroyed the Wehrmacht (as usual,that there was a Soviet Army, was hushed up .)
Later,the myth of the winter remained,but it became PC to claim that the Austrian corporal (exceptionally) did something good :his stand order saved the Wehrmacht,the existence of the Red Army still being hushed up .
Now,this is shaded:the stand order is questioned.
But,still, there are 2 groups who are claiming that the WM was almost destroyed
A) the goose-stepping boys
A1:the goose-stepping defenders of the reputation of the German generals (such people do exist) claiming that the winter and the Austrian corporal almost (of course) destroyed the WM
A2:the Stormfront boys claiming that Grofaz saved the WM from being destroyed by the winter(the harsher the winter,the bigger the role of Grofaz)
B)the ignorant ones (I am thinking on the History Channell)who,having seen Dickensonian snow pictures, are convinced that it only was freezing on the German side,that no German had winterunderwear,that,Germany having the climate of Florida,the poor WM boys did not know how to protect against the cold .
Maybe,we could discussing the question why the WM was not destroyed in this winter=why the Soviet offensive failed.
I see 3 possible causes (but I am sure there are more)
1) questionable decisions of the Stavka
2)the winter:the snow was hindering the advancing Russians
3)the fact that the offensive capacity of the Red Army was still limited(the most important one,IMHO)

 

depends on the exact time your talking. Most likely a combination of all the factors you mentioned. Guderian did manage to save his unit from destruction with his withdrawel against hitlers stand order (which he was relieved). And I dis agree about the weather affecting both sides equally. Although it was hindering to both sides it was worse for the germans. im presumming i need to provide evidence?

 

1the period is december,january,february and march
2 Guderian claimed that he was saving his army,that's not the same as :he did manage to save his army
3 There was a lot of snow,and this would hinder more the advancing party :the Russians , and,as it was as cold on the German side as on the Russian side,the cold was fair :it was hindering both parties at the same measure
4Yes,it would be better to provide evidence .

 

1)well at this point the germans no longer could really conduct an offensive, but they could conduct a defensive and i believe guderians withdrawel took place in early november but im not sure. so that would be irrelevent. I do believe the winter this year was the worst in a few years so attacking in it is obviously a hinderence but the germans who had already fallen back to a defensive positions makes it worse. ill be beck for the other 2 but my reasons are really the same as the first page on this thread.

 

As Guderian was fired at the end of december,his withdrawal happened in the same period.
About the winter:the question is:was the winter a cold one,or a cold Russian one ? Some people are comparing the winter to winters in other countries,and not to other Russian winters.
A(normally suspected source,because the author is the favourite of the goose-stepping ones),thus Irving is writing that the winter of 1941-1942 was a normal Russian winter .
Whatever,there is on the following thread on the AHF (was the winter early and harsh?) a very detailed post of a Russian member,giving the temperatures (till 31 december) for the Kalininfront (NW of Moscow),some exemples:
11 november :-15(always Celsius)
23 november:-5
4 december:-21
12 december:+4
18 december:-12
31 december:-19
Snow cover :
20 november:10/12 cm
18 december:35 cm
31 december:50 cm
Some will say that december was colder than other decembers,other will reply that december was normal,and that the other decembers were warmer than normal .

Whatever,the claim of Goebbels that suddenly,early,there was a harsh outbreak of the Russian winter on 4 december,is wrong .
Of course,the position of the man was not enviable:he had to invent an excuse for the stop of the German offensive,and,as Rastenburg would not be pleased to hear that the offensive was stopped by the "Russian Untermenschen",the Doctor had to look elsewhere:general Winter.As no human being could stop the advance of the invincible WM,the cause was the intervention of something not human .One is comforting oneself with was is available (the grapes were to sour).Curiously,no one noticed that it was curious that it was cold only on the German side,or maybe the Russians were transporting the cold on their tanks .

 

Guderian withdrew in mid to late december after the destruction of the German XXXIX Corps protecting his army's southern flank at Tula.

 

I just want to add in a few key points to the war on the Eastern Front. I have read so many books on this subject that a few key points keep showing up so therefore these simple little bullets of information show how difficult things were for the Germans and why a victory in Russia was such a long shot.

1) The logistical situation faced by the Germans in August of 41 was nightmare. The different types of rail gauges in Russia and a critical lack of German natural resources saw the Wehrmacht in a very bad way. Severe shortages of oil and grease (critical for panzer operation) hampered operations even further. After 1941 the Wehrmacht would never be able to field anywhere near the numbers of men and material just prior to the start of Barbarossa.

2) The battle of Smolensk broke the momentum of AGC.The resistance put forth by the Soviets in this battle caused a great deal of consternation with Hitler and the upper echelons of the Wehrmacht.

3) A lack of a clear strategic objective for the Germans in the East. When General Halder laid out his plans for Barbarossa the overall goal was the capture of Moscow. Hitler saw the main goal of Barbarossa as the complete destruction of the Red Army in the field. This had severe consequences for the Germans. Hitler’s diversion of portions of AGC to assist AGS with the encirclement of enemy forces around Kiev cost the Germans precious time as well as more casualties. After the victory at Kiev, Operation Typhoon was almost an afterthought for Hitler. When this Operation finally commenced the attacking units were severely understrength. A great deal of attacking units only had a few operational panzers. The attack on Moscow, though great victories were achieved at Vyazma and Bryansk,at this stage was doomed to failure as AGC no longer possessed the offensive punch to capture the Russian capital. The Germans had capitalized on the initial shock of Barbarossa and it was in this ‘shock’ that lay their greatest chance for victory because time was against them in a big way. When the shock wore off the Soviets were able draw upon their massive amounts of men and material. The Wehrmacht was not built for a war of attrition.

4) The horrendous intelligence capabilities of the Wehrmacht.This would haunt the Germans in virtually every theater of operations throughout the war.

These are my main thoughts on why the German gamble in the East was a long shot. The Germans despite the above handicaps were able to pull off some stunning victories but one has to give the same to the Red Army. They absorbed the titanic blows of Barbarossa (not to mention Stalin’s purges) and developed into the greatest land army the world has ever seen. So to sum this all up after the 1941 failure to take Moscow a German victory became an impossibility. The drive on the Caucuses for oil was a bid for a strategic draw on Hitler’s part. Even if the Germans took the oilfields do you think they possessed the ability to hold them long enough to drain the Soviet Union of petrol? If the Germans took Stalingrad do you think the Soviets would have just thrown in the towel? What sort of condition would 6[SUP]th[/SUP] Army had been in at this stage? In order for the Germans to achieve a victory in ’42 they would have had to deliver several more hammer blows to the Red Army on top of taking the oil fields and Stalingrad. This given the strength of the German army in ’42 was another impossibility. I know some will clamor about the horrid command and control of the Red Army but in ’42 attrition was taking preeminence on the battlefield, and given the ever increasing production levels of the Soviets, the Germans were basically at this point truly screwed. Just my two cents…………………

 

Read this thread carefully, there's already a good deal of information regarding this.

A thrust to Moscow at this point by AGC was logistically impossible, then turning to Kiev was a necessity and not a mistake.

It is one of the worst myth of eastern front.

with hindsight, capture of Moscow in 1941 wouldn't had delivered victory for Germany.

 

Just a short reply (otherwise we will go ...of topic)
1)Logistics :while these were important,the danger is that they are overestimated :even if the Germans had better logistics,it is questionable that Barbarossa could succeed,because,essentially,Barbarossa was (in 1941) the fight between 3.6 million Germans and 9 million Russians,I don't think that to give the 3.6 million Germans better logistics would change this .
3)lack of clear strategic objective :I don't think that with a better clear strategic objective/other strategy,Barbarossa could succeed ,because of the numerical relationship :3.6 against 9
4)the same for point 4 :it would haunt the Germans,but it would never be decisive.Why would it be decisive to know that the enemy is stronger than you are thinking?

 

It wasn't actually lack of clear strategic objective but faulty strategic considerations by German High Command like

1. They thought Soviet Political Structure was weak, it wasn't and it doesn't matter if you love or hate soviet system. The point is it wasn't weak and could withstand an invasion of that scale politically.

2. Failure to grasp mobilization capability of Soviet Union. Even in 43 at Kursk they were completely surprised by the strategic reserve of Red Army.

The numbers are correct although misleading.There were never 9 million soviets against 3.6 million Germans at a single time and then this type of numbers only strengthens the myth that soviets won the war because they were just too many which you yourself have discredited in past iirc.

 

They are not misleading,because I never claimed that there were that number fighting at a single moment,and I never claimed that this was the reason why the Russians won .This is only one of your strawmen.

And,this is not a strawman:your arguments are that the Germans lost (and the Russians are ignored):if the Germans had better intelligence,if they had a better strategic plan ,and the classic blahblah:it all does not matter .Your points 1 and 2 are irrlevant :they only are excuses to explain the German defeat .
The German victory or defeat did not depend from your point 1 or your point 2 ,it did not depend of what the Germans did,or not did,or could do,or should do,or ....:it did depend on what the Soviets did,could do,should do .
The Germans did not lose,the Russians won,all the rest are the usual attempts to gloze over the German defeat ,as:it was Hitler,it was the weather,it was bad intelligence,it was a bad plan (implying that with a better plan,they could win...),it was the failure to grasp mobilisation capability.....

 

Calm down. I am not saying that you said those things only that to a casual reader it will appear so because of the blunt manner in which you presented those numbers. Imagine a person coming to last page of this thread and seeing that number what will he get from it??

Again you are totally misunderstanding my position, I will be the last one to ignore russians or soviets. If anything I have always been biased to soviet side.

I never claimed that.

Never claimed this either. Don't confuse me with Noreaster

I am not giving any excuses, just giving two points in regards to Noreaster's comment. It doesn't matter they are irrelevent or not. You just need to chill and take a look at the thread again.

Of course, and thank you for I don't find much people on Internet with same belief.


And if you do look at my points carefully this time (I hope so) you will realize that they actually support the view that Germany couldn't defeat USSR.
If they accept those things about USSR that I mentioned, no strategic plan was going to be feasible. They would have been sane enough to leave the USSR alone which was actually the only logical Plan for Germans.


Finally LJad, you have misunderstood me on an epic scale but regardless let's move on.


A myth that comes to my mind right now is that x or y or z battle was turning point for the war in east which is totally absurd.

 

The Soviets winning and the Germans loosing are two sides of the same coin. The Russians lost in many ways when the Soviets won the Civil war.