#28354
Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
I know yes, it would snow, the Red Army had T34s and Kv tanks when the germans had worse tanks.
Guards of the Red Army. Today, the German Reich is done away with!
Locked topic · 161 posts
Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Eastern Front
#28370
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
imho fact that germans fought on two fronts was very bad idea also Hitler become more paranoic and gives strange comands and other things such as that snow, enemy equipment, strategy...
#28428
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Hitler participated a large part in German defeat in WW2. Many stupid orders were made. Like the order not to give the Panzer VI Tiger the sloped armor because it's originated by Soviets, that result in a heavier Tiger (sloped armor mean more protection with less steel). Hitler was not trained to be commander but he like to be, so his commanders cannot do their best. And the order not to withdraw the 6th Army in Stalingrad, that city was already a mess of ruin, with nothing valuable except the word "Stalin" in its name.
The russian winter is also a damn thing. Napoleon lost to it. And imagine you with some 9 kamerad holding waves after waves of Soviet infantry. Soviet outnumbered German in a ridiculous way, their casualties also outnumbered German's but the population even do that in a greater ratio. German stuffs are always good. But a bit like masterpiece, very hard to make, too complicated for mass production. I heard that German tanks give their crews a lot of comfort, since Soviet tanks are narrow, too hot for their crews, not much chance to survive (Soviets designers don't care much about emergency doors), but are ways cheaper, simpler to produce.
The russian winter is also a damn thing. Napoleon lost to it. And imagine you with some 9 kamerad holding waves after waves of Soviet infantry. Soviet outnumbered German in a ridiculous way, their casualties also outnumbered German's but the population even do that in a greater ratio. German stuffs are always good. But a bit like masterpiece, very hard to make, too complicated for mass production. I heard that German tanks give their crews a lot of comfort, since Soviet tanks are narrow, too hot for their crews, not much chance to survive (Soviets designers don't care much about emergency doors), but are ways cheaper, simpler to produce.
#28643
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
I thought the tiger was already designed by Henschel before the T-34 was encountered, hence the inspiration for sloping armour in later German tanks (Panther, Tiger II) and there was not time for a new design.
I had never heard Hitler had much to do with its design, he merely chose it over the Porshe model.
I had never heard Hitler had much to do with its design, he merely chose it over the Porshe model.
#30027
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Way more reasons that I can count. But the most dire mistakes imo;
1. Having a brilliant politician, who, since he was a corporal at one time was fit to be the "Grand Field Marshal"
2. Underestimating the Red Army in combination with overestimating what the German military could do.
3.Hitler's inability to understand logistics and that armies don't just arm, fuel, and feed themselves out of thin air.
4. Hitler's childish ego, in that he did not accept his High Staff's ideas...because they were not his own.
5. Trying to occupy a nation of 170 million people with a 3 million man army.
6. Expecting the war to be over in a matter of weeks....even if Germany was a true superpower and the USSR had no economy, the size of the country alone is a huge obstacle. No winter equipment? Wtf? Hitler read about Napoleon's conquests, admired them, but learned nothing from them.
1. Having a brilliant politician, who, since he was a corporal at one time was fit to be the "Grand Field Marshal"
2. Underestimating the Red Army in combination with overestimating what the German military could do.
3.Hitler's inability to understand logistics and that armies don't just arm, fuel, and feed themselves out of thin air.
4. Hitler's childish ego, in that he did not accept his High Staff's ideas...because they were not his own.
5. Trying to occupy a nation of 170 million people with a 3 million man army.
6. Expecting the war to be over in a matter of weeks....even if Germany was a true superpower and the USSR had no economy, the size of the country alone is a huge obstacle. No winter equipment? Wtf? Hitler read about Napoleon's conquests, admired them, but learned nothing from them.
#30037
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Why did Soviets allmost lose on the Eastern Front? is a better question.
They had more and better tanks than the whole world combined. Guns like ZiS-2, ZiS-3 (germany copied it to make their Pak 7,5cm) 152mm 1937 howitzer were the best in the whole world at that time (1941).
The russian deep battle concept(russian blitzkrieg) was created in early-mid 30s. Russians had strong and mobile mechanized corps, unlike the French.
The MiG-3, Jak-1, Pe-2 and Il2 planes were as good as Me-109, Ju-88 and Ju-87. Il2 was so well armored that even 20mm shells sometimes bounced of it.
The answer is:
1. Winter.
2. In russia oficers were allways shi@#.
3. In the mid 30s when Stalin came to power he send to siberia(if not killed them and send their families) anyone who didnt want to be communist. People didnt want to fight for such a tiran as Stalin.
4. In the mid 30s when hitler was saving economy in his country Stalin started building up his army and military industry. He was selling food for technology (also british tanks - T-26, T-28, T-35, US cristie suspention and many more) while some Soviets died in hunger. Again people didnt want to fight for such a tiran.
In first monts of the war soviets mass deserted from the army becouse they hoped for a better life after Stalin looses the war. There were high hopes for independent Ukraine and baltic states. Some people belived that german tanks have crosses on them becouse their leading a crusade to defeat antichrist Stalin. Some soviets even started to fight their own army.
Monts past and people found out that Hitler and Stalin are the same. Still there were some units (like Ukrainian cossacks) that fought till 1945 alongside germany.
They had more and better tanks than the whole world combined. Guns like ZiS-2, ZiS-3 (germany copied it to make their Pak 7,5cm) 152mm 1937 howitzer were the best in the whole world at that time (1941).
The russian deep battle concept(russian blitzkrieg) was created in early-mid 30s. Russians had strong and mobile mechanized corps, unlike the French.
The MiG-3, Jak-1, Pe-2 and Il2 planes were as good as Me-109, Ju-88 and Ju-87. Il2 was so well armored that even 20mm shells sometimes bounced of it.
The answer is:
1. Winter.
2. In russia oficers were allways shi@#.
3. In the mid 30s when Stalin came to power he send to siberia(if not killed them and send their families) anyone who didnt want to be communist. People didnt want to fight for such a tiran as Stalin.
4. In the mid 30s when hitler was saving economy in his country Stalin started building up his army and military industry. He was selling food for technology (also british tanks - T-26, T-28, T-35, US cristie suspention and many more) while some Soviets died in hunger. Again people didnt want to fight for such a tiran.
In first monts of the war soviets mass deserted from the army becouse they hoped for a better life after Stalin looses the war. There were high hopes for independent Ukraine and baltic states. Some people belived that german tanks have crosses on them becouse their leading a crusade to defeat antichrist Stalin. Some soviets even started to fight their own army.
Monts past and people found out that Hitler and Stalin are the same. Still there were some units (like Ukrainian cossacks) that fought till 1945 alongside germany.
#30074
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Basically, Germany got cocky.
Tried to fight too many countries on multiple fronts, no less.
Couldn't keep up with their industrial strength.
Stretched their army to thin...
Underestimated the enemy.
Overestimated their military might.
etc, etc.
In short, they screwed up.
Tried to fight too many countries on multiple fronts, no less.
Couldn't keep up with their industrial strength.
Stretched their army to thin...
Underestimated the enemy.
Overestimated their military might.
etc, etc.
In short, they screwed up.
#31253
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Quite frankly, Hitler did not get the Eastern Front he was hoping for.
Barbarossa's objective was a quick victory over Russia; this was done via the classical Blitzkrieg tactic that worked in France and the Low Countries. The idea was to rapidly blast through into Russia, sieze resources wherever and encircle whole portions of the Soviet army. Whatever stood in their path was blasted, but the main goal was a "bloodless kill"- lopping off the head of the enemy quickly than wearing him down. After such shock and awe, it was hoped that the German forces would sieze Moscow and Russia would capitulate.
The Germans did indeed manage to rapidly smash through Soviet resistance, wipe out whole armies (technically Corps-size formations IIRC). The satellite states like Ukraine and Poland initially welcomed the Germans as liberators from Communist totalitarianism. The purged and antiquidated Red Army crumbled whenever it chose to stand ground, and the average soldier faced death from the advancing enemy or execution for cowardice. If not for a number of seemingly significant but critical factors there was indeed a real chance Barbarossa was successful.
First off, the blitzkrieg was both a success and failure; the army moved so fast that some encircled Soviet formations continued as partisans, disrupting the supply chain and hindering German efforts in securing the vast territory they held. Second, the Germans moved so fast that supply lines were extended making partisan activity far more dangerous than it would be. The Germans may advance far, but once they reach their limit the Blitzkrieg tactic is largely nullified of its important elements- speed shock and mobility. The Germans reached barely reached Moscow but failed to take it, allowing the Soviet leadership to relocate and continue safely. Soviet industry was also packed up and merely moved eastward, far from German bombers. Third, the Germans relied on Blitzkrieg to achieve a quick victory that made anything less a garunteed failure.
Because of the factors of overextended logistics, harassing partisans and the aparent lack of a Soviet collapse, the Germans then had to adjust to these new problems. The SS deployed Einsatzgruppen forces to enforce Nazi ideology, that is, killing Jews, enslaving Slavs for work and general brutality, losing local support and consequently feeding partisan activity. The Russians burned much of what they can't salvage as they retreated, forcing the Germans to rely entirely on supply lines rather than local sources of food and fuel to bolster their ability to continue fighting.
Fourth, since Germany had not anticipated a prolonged Soviet resistance, development of long-range bombers to inflict damage on the war industry was not prioritized. Here we see the same mistake Hitler made in the Battle of Britain: the decision to target cities instead of finishing off the RAF (which ironically was nearly battered and defeated utterly without the Germans realizing it). So when factories packed up and moved out of bomber range, the Soviets were able to continue manufacturing the means to fight the Germans. No matter how many Russian troops and vehicles they killed, more of them came, while the Germans were running themselves into the ground.
So a short summary would be:
-lack of further planning into the posible scenarios of Barbarossa (namely, the chance that campaign goals were not achievable in time such as winning before the onset of winter)
-inabiltiy to maintain logistics
-unwillingness to favourably treat occupied areas thus allowing the enemy to operate behind the lines
-inability to strike the heart Russia that is the war industry- Russian lives and materiel were the blood, but so long as the heart kept beating, Russia wouldn't flounder
-Hitler's unrealistic expectations and demands on the German army to achieve objectives without addressing these issues
In analogy, Germany was continuously punching the air out of Russia, but never stopped it from breathing. Everytime the Germans ran out of steam, the Russians struck back. However valiantly the Germans withstood Russian offensives, every German loss was far more fatal than a Russian one. Russia can afford to be sloppy, while Germany could not.
Barbarossa's objective was a quick victory over Russia; this was done via the classical Blitzkrieg tactic that worked in France and the Low Countries. The idea was to rapidly blast through into Russia, sieze resources wherever and encircle whole portions of the Soviet army. Whatever stood in their path was blasted, but the main goal was a "bloodless kill"- lopping off the head of the enemy quickly than wearing him down. After such shock and awe, it was hoped that the German forces would sieze Moscow and Russia would capitulate.
The Germans did indeed manage to rapidly smash through Soviet resistance, wipe out whole armies (technically Corps-size formations IIRC). The satellite states like Ukraine and Poland initially welcomed the Germans as liberators from Communist totalitarianism. The purged and antiquidated Red Army crumbled whenever it chose to stand ground, and the average soldier faced death from the advancing enemy or execution for cowardice. If not for a number of seemingly significant but critical factors there was indeed a real chance Barbarossa was successful.
First off, the blitzkrieg was both a success and failure; the army moved so fast that some encircled Soviet formations continued as partisans, disrupting the supply chain and hindering German efforts in securing the vast territory they held. Second, the Germans moved so fast that supply lines were extended making partisan activity far more dangerous than it would be. The Germans may advance far, but once they reach their limit the Blitzkrieg tactic is largely nullified of its important elements- speed shock and mobility. The Germans reached barely reached Moscow but failed to take it, allowing the Soviet leadership to relocate and continue safely. Soviet industry was also packed up and merely moved eastward, far from German bombers. Third, the Germans relied on Blitzkrieg to achieve a quick victory that made anything less a garunteed failure.
Because of the factors of overextended logistics, harassing partisans and the aparent lack of a Soviet collapse, the Germans then had to adjust to these new problems. The SS deployed Einsatzgruppen forces to enforce Nazi ideology, that is, killing Jews, enslaving Slavs for work and general brutality, losing local support and consequently feeding partisan activity. The Russians burned much of what they can't salvage as they retreated, forcing the Germans to rely entirely on supply lines rather than local sources of food and fuel to bolster their ability to continue fighting.
Fourth, since Germany had not anticipated a prolonged Soviet resistance, development of long-range bombers to inflict damage on the war industry was not prioritized. Here we see the same mistake Hitler made in the Battle of Britain: the decision to target cities instead of finishing off the RAF (which ironically was nearly battered and defeated utterly without the Germans realizing it). So when factories packed up and moved out of bomber range, the Soviets were able to continue manufacturing the means to fight the Germans. No matter how many Russian troops and vehicles they killed, more of them came, while the Germans were running themselves into the ground.
So a short summary would be:
-lack of further planning into the posible scenarios of Barbarossa (namely, the chance that campaign goals were not achievable in time such as winning before the onset of winter)
-inabiltiy to maintain logistics
-unwillingness to favourably treat occupied areas thus allowing the enemy to operate behind the lines
-inability to strike the heart Russia that is the war industry- Russian lives and materiel were the blood, but so long as the heart kept beating, Russia wouldn't flounder
-Hitler's unrealistic expectations and demands on the German army to achieve objectives without addressing these issues
In analogy, Germany was continuously punching the air out of Russia, but never stopped it from breathing. Everytime the Germans ran out of steam, the Russians struck back. However valiantly the Germans withstood Russian offensives, every German loss was far more fatal than a Russian one. Russia can afford to be sloppy, while Germany could not.
#34167
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
i just wanted to say: WOW!
as far as my knowledge about the Eastern Front goes, you're completely right!
and indeed, the Blitzkrieg depended on speed, denying the opponent's overall capability to fight.
as far as my knowledge about the Eastern Front goes, you're completely right!
and indeed, the Blitzkrieg depended on speed, denying the opponent's overall capability to fight.
Rommel is regarded as a chivalrous and humane officer because his Afrikakorps was never accused of any war crimes. Soldiers captured during his Africa campaign were reported to have been treated humanely; furthermore, he ignored orders to kill captured commandos, Jewish soldiers and civilians in all
#34381
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Nazi Germany never suffered a defeat until Stalingrad. The rolled over countries in weeks previous to Barbarossa. "Mission Accomplished" was supposedly just in sights.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Jaggedhunter
#34386
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
I agree with most others here sayin that Hitler tried to do everything, and He was a good politician just not a good Military leader and many other things at the same time.
And to be honest how many Americans want George W Bush leading the Military & it's operations?
And to be honest how many Americans want George W Bush leading the Military & it's operations?
Molly: " It's our rock garden"
Dwight: "What are you farming, Bullcrap?"
You Are a Rebel Spy and a traitor to the Empire!
~Darth Vader
Any typos found may be given to Seeme.
Dwight: "What are you farming, Bullcrap?"
You Are a Rebel Spy and a traitor to the Empire!
~Darth Vader
Any typos found may be given to Seeme.
#37585
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
I will submit my thoughts.
The german army was not prepared for large scale war, Operation Barbarossa was meant to defeat the soviet union in a short blitzkrieg campaign lasting no longer than a year or two.
By 1943 After the defeat at Stalingrad and Kursk, the manpower of the German military was greatly depleted of it's offensive capabilities, a strong force still but could not match to the millions of Russian troops, and could not replace the colossal losses as Stalingrad and Kursk.
--
What I think Hitler should have done? Deal with Britain first.
When you think about it, Germany had at least an extra million or so troops in the west. If he had dealt with Britain first he could have withdrew up to half of that (around enough to create an entire new army) and sent it to the east. Furthermore, there would not have been much threat from the western countries. By the time Germany had taken Russia, they would have had access to the Nuke. Once they had the Nuke then no country was really in a position to stop them, they would have wiped America out. Not to mention the huge resource bonus Germany could have got from taking Russia, by far enough to create an entire armada of ships, planes and well trained troops in a few years. By far enough to take America.
The german army was not prepared for large scale war, Operation Barbarossa was meant to defeat the soviet union in a short blitzkrieg campaign lasting no longer than a year or two.
By 1943 After the defeat at Stalingrad and Kursk, the manpower of the German military was greatly depleted of it's offensive capabilities, a strong force still but could not match to the millions of Russian troops, and could not replace the colossal losses as Stalingrad and Kursk.
--
What I think Hitler should have done? Deal with Britain first.
When you think about it, Germany had at least an extra million or so troops in the west. If he had dealt with Britain first he could have withdrew up to half of that (around enough to create an entire new army) and sent it to the east. Furthermore, there would not have been much threat from the western countries. By the time Germany had taken Russia, they would have had access to the Nuke. Once they had the Nuke then no country was really in a position to stop them, they would have wiped America out. Not to mention the huge resource bonus Germany could have got from taking Russia, by far enough to create an entire armada of ships, planes and well trained troops in a few years. By far enough to take America.
#37599
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
I think that Germany somehow won the war. I don't mean full victory, but... Stalin's army had 20.000 tanks in 1941, and in 1942 he would be ready to attack. Then Germany would be screwed, and in few months time we would have French Soviet Republic, alongside with German, Polish and many others...
German Army was trained, equipped and they surprised Soviets. However they didn't have any intelligence in Soviet Union. They didn't expect that in russia there were so bad roads ( and asphalt one were very rare). Also they lost one month while conquering Jugoslavia and Greece.
German Army was trained, equipped and they surprised Soviets. However they didn't have any intelligence in Soviet Union. They didn't expect that in russia there were so bad roads ( and asphalt one were very rare). Also they lost one month while conquering Jugoslavia and Greece.
Lord wrote:
OSTHEER IS DONE WHEN IT'S DONE!
#37607
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
comrade_daelin wrote:
Quite frankly, Hitler did not get the Eastern Front he was hoping for.
Well tbh Hitler didn't want to fully understand the gravity of the situation of staging the largest offensive ever.. This is made evident by this statement of his "We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down"
Barbarossa's objective was a quick victory over Russia; this was done via the classical Blitzkrieg tactic that worked in France and the Low Countries. The idea was to rapidly blast through into Russia, sieze resources wherever and encircle whole portions of the Soviet army. Whatever stood in their path was blasted, but the main goal was a "bloodless kill"- lopping off the head of the enemy quickly than wearing him down. After such shock and awe, it was hoped that the German forces would sieze Moscow and Russia would capitulate.
True but as any military theorist would tell you, all the other lucrative objectives given in precedence of this made it very difficult to achieve this, hell most modern armies would have difficult with the strain and frictions of war that would come from this. Barbarossa treated Russia as another France and didn't take proper measures to all the "what if" scenarios, flexibility over temporary supremacy a lesson often taught by Clausewitz and others which had been greatly ignored in both WWs, they approached Russia with the same mind set as France imagining a great double envelopment of Moscow after all the side objectives were presumably handled and completed.
The Germans did indeed manage to rapidly smash through Soviet resistance, wipe out whole armies (technically Corps-size formations IIRC). The satellite states like Ukraine and Poland initially welcomed the Germans as liberators from Communist totalitarianism. The purged and antiquidated Red Army crumbled whenever it chose to stand ground, and the average soldier faced death from the advancing enemy or execution for cowardice. If not for a number of seemingly significant but critical factors there was indeed a real chance Barbarossa was successful.
First off, the blitzkrieg was both a success and failure; the army moved so fast that some encircled Soviet formations continued as partisans, disrupting the supply chain and hindering German efforts in securing the vast territory they held. Second, the Germans moved so fast that supply lines were extended making partisan activity far more dangerous than it would be. The Germans may advance far, but once they reach their limit the Blitzkrieg tactic is largely nullified of its important elements- speed shock and mobility. The Germans reached barely reached Moscow but failed to take it, allowing the Soviet leadership to relocate and continue safely. Soviet industry was also packed up and merely moved eastward, far from German bombers. Third, the Germans relied on Blitzkrieg to achieve a quick victory that made anything less a guaranteed failure.
Yes but the main failures of the campaign was ensuring flexibility and speed and priority, without all the other lucrative objectives that were deemed vital, the germans could have just seized the Caucus oil fields and main infrastructure which would then cripple the Russians war machine and efforts, then they could force them into their own terms and not vice versa.
Because of the factors of overextended logistics, harassing partisans and the aparent lack of a Soviet collapse, the Germans then had to adjust to these new problems. The SS deployed Einsatzgruppen forces to enforce Nazi ideology, that is, killing Jews, enslaving Slavs for work and general brutality, losing local support and consequently feeding partisan activity. The Russians burned much of what they can't salvage as they retreated, forcing the Germans to rely entirely on supply lines rather than local sources of food and fuel to bolster their ability to continue fighting.
Logistic failings happened even before the campaign began with the conception of Barbarossa. Like I stated even modern armies today would have difficulty with such scale of partisan activity and such scale especially consider the fact that at the time allot of their aid from the Luftwaffe were stretched from the very west of France and to Africa.
Fourth, since Germany had not anticipated a prolonged Soviet resistance, development of long-range bombers to inflict damage on the war industry was not prioritized. Here we see the same mistake Hitler made in the Battle of Britain: the decision to target cities instead of finishing off the RAF (which ironically was nearly battered and defeated utterly without the Germans realizing it). So when factories packed up and moved out of bomber range, the Soviets were able to continue manufacturing the means to fight the Germans. No matter how many Russian troops and vehicles they killed, more of them came, while the Germans were running themselves into the ground.
Which could have all been avoided had they had clearly defined the objectives and focused on the infrastructure.
So a short summary would be:
-lack of further planning into the posible scenarios of Barbarossa (namely, the chance that campaign goals were not achievable in time such as winning before the onset of winter) Well winter did play a factor but is often time over emphasized as the Russians could also feel its affects and get frostbite no?
-inabiltiy to maintain logistics
Yes and the failure to consolidate forces and manage supply lines.
-unwillingness to favourably treat occupied areas thus allowing the enemy to operate behind the lines
Yes and no certain areas such as the Ukraine meet the new occupation with relief of being freed from Stalins regime..
-inability to strike the heart Russia that is the war industry- Russian lives and materiel were the blood, but so long as the heart kept beating, Russia wouldn't flounder
Well they had planned on doing so but like I have stated because of the way the operation and levied objectives it was not possible to achieve this in the quick and decisive way which Blitzkrieg called for.
-Hitler's unrealistic expectations and demands on the German army to achieve objectives without addressing these issues
Common knowledge, the main reasoning for the operation and all its elaboration was in fact Hitlers strong desire for a shock and awe effect that he determined would crush the allies morale. "When Barbarossa commences, the world will hold its breath and make no comment."
In analogy, Germany was continuously punching the air out of Russia, but never stopped it from breathing. Everytime the Germans ran out of steam, the Russians struck back. However valiantly the Germans withstood Russian offensives, every German loss was far more fatal than a Russian one. Russia can afford to be sloppy, while Germany could not.
Another main reason left out was due to the indecisiveness promoted by Barbarossa it gave the Stalin plenty of time to reorganize and mobilize armies from the far east who should had still been occupied by the Japaneses
TS3 2.0: ts55.gameservers.com:9374
#37625
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
I'm tired of reading about Ukraine, which is "joyfully greeted the Germans." It was rare and it is only in the west. A small number of traitors does not give the right to say so about the whole Ukraine.
Millions fought for the Soviets, hundreds/thousands of happily greeted the Germans.
Millions fought for the Soviets, hundreds/thousands of happily greeted the Germans.
I believe in one thing only, the power of the human will. © Joseph Stalin
#37628
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
UeArtemis wrote: It was rare and it is only in the west. A small number of traitors does not give the right to say so about the whole Ukraine.
Millions fought for the Soviets, hundreds/thousands of happily greeted the Germans.
Still doesn't remove the fact that in a large part they were greeted as liberators in circles that yes were mostly in the west but that still doesn't undermine my point.
TS3 2.0: ts55.gameservers.com:9374
#37635
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Millions...
I believe in one thing only, the power of the human will. © Joseph Stalin
#37749
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Billions!
The Russians think there sooo tough, wait till the Ostheer comes...
Coh Name: Seeme
Coh Name: Seeme
#37757
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Trillions!
#37773
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Quadrillions!
#37804
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Quintillions!
Mors Indecepta
Might controls everything, and without strength you cannot protect anything. Let alone yourself...
Might controls everything, and without strength you cannot protect anything. Let alone yourself...
Last edited June 14, 2010 at 4:50 AM by blackbishop
#37832
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Sixathingeillon!
The Russians think there sooo tough, wait till the Ostheer comes...
Coh Name: Seeme
Coh Name: Seeme
#37993
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.75 (whatever the scientific term for this number is)
#37994
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Men! What about the forum rules???!!! >:(
P.S. neosdark, За Родину, товарищи, за Сталина!!!! Урааааааааааа!!!!! ;) ::)
P.S. neosdark, За Родину, товарищи, за Сталина!!!! Урааааааааааа!!!!! ;) ::)
I believe in one thing only, the power of the human will. © Joseph Stalin
#38007
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Your the one that started it...
The Russians think there sooo tough, wait till the Ostheer comes...
Coh Name: Seeme
Coh Name: Seeme
#38022
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Artemis i know that what u wrote would be the proper war cry, but i don't like playing with the rest of the world so i made my own.
#38048
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
comrade_daelin wrote:
Quite frankly, Hitler did not get the Eastern Front he was hoping for.
Barbarossa's objective was a quick victory over Russia; this was done via the classical Blitzkrieg tactic that worked in France and the Low Countries. The idea was to rapidly blast through into Russia, sieze resources wherever and encircle whole portions of the Soviet army. Whatever stood in their path was blasted, but the main goal was a "bloodless kill"- lopping off the head of the enemy quickly than wearing him down. After such shock and awe, it was hoped that the German forces would sieze Moscow and Russia would capitulate.
The Germans did indeed manage to rapidly smash through Soviet resistance, wipe out whole armies (technically Corps-size formations IIRC). The satellite states like Ukraine and Poland initially welcomed the Germans as liberators from Communist totalitarianism. The purged and antiquidated Red Army crumbled whenever it chose to stand ground, and the average soldier faced death from the advancing enemy or execution for cowardice. If not for a number of seemingly significant but critical factors there was indeed a real chance Barbarossa was successful.
First off, the blitzkrieg was both a success and failure; the army moved so fast that some encircled Soviet formations continued as partisans, disrupting the supply chain and hindering German efforts in securing the vast territory they held. Second, the Germans moved so fast that supply lines were extended making partisan activity far more dangerous than it would be. The Germans may advance far, but once they reach their limit the Blitzkrieg tactic is largely nullified of its important elements- speed shock and mobility. The Germans reached barely reached Moscow but failed to take it, allowing the Soviet leadership to relocate and continue safely. Soviet industry was also packed up and merely moved eastward, far from German bombers. Third, the Germans relied on Blitzkrieg to achieve a quick victory that made anything less a garunteed failure.
Because of the factors of overextended logistics, harassing partisans and the aparent lack of a Soviet collapse, the Germans then had to adjust to these new problems. The SS deployed Einsatzgruppen forces to enforce Nazi ideology, that is, killing Jews, enslaving Slavs for work and general brutality, losing local support and consequently feeding partisan activity. The Russians burned much of what they can't salvage as they retreated, forcing the Germans to rely entirely on supply lines rather than local sources of food and fuel to bolster their ability to continue fighting.
Fourth, since Germany had not anticipated a prolonged Soviet resistance, development of long-range bombers to inflict damage on the war industry was not prioritized. Here we see the same mistake Hitler made in the Battle of Britain: the decision to target cities instead of finishing off the RAF (which ironically was nearly battered and defeated utterly without the Germans realizing it). So when factories packed up and moved out of bomber range, the Soviets were able to continue manufacturing the means to fight the Germans. No matter how many Russian troops and vehicles they killed, more of them came, while the Germans were running themselves into the ground.
So a short summary would be:
-lack of further planning into the posible scenarios of Barbarossa (namely, the chance that campaign goals were not achievable in time such as winning before the onset of winter)
-inabiltiy to maintain logistics
-unwillingness to favourably treat occupied areas thus allowing the enemy to operate behind the lines
-inability to strike the heart Russia that is the war industry- Russian lives and materiel were the blood, but so long as the heart kept beating, Russia wouldn't flounder
-Hitler's unrealistic expectations and demands on the German army to achieve objectives without addressing these issues
In analogy, Germany was continuously punching the air out of Russia, but never stopped it from breathing. Everytime the Germans ran out of steam, the Russians struck back. However valiantly the Germans withstood Russian offensives, every German loss was far more fatal than a Russian one. Russia can afford to be sloppy, while Germany could not.
Nail on the head, well done. One factor that has not been mentioned was the poor state of the Wehrmachts intel. It was lackluster in general but one thing they lacked in specific detail was knowledge of the terrain in Russia. This just compounded the logistical nightmares of the Blitzkrieg in Russia. Roads were often inadequate or non-existent when the Germans, relying on old maps and insufficient recon, thought they were there. The spearheads of the elite Panzergruppen often got lost and had to ask for directions or simply got bogged down in the mud when they thought they would be on a road.
Army Group Command Ostheer Concept
http://easternfront.org/forums/index.php?topic=3702.0
http://easternfront.org/forums/index.php?topic=3702.0
#38057
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
To the O.P., to stay a little on topic:
I'd recommend watching the doc "The War Of The Century - When Hitler Fought Stalin", if you haven't already. Well, if you had, you probably hadn't started this thread. ;)
It details pretyy much the complete history from their early rise to power via their pre-war rivalry to the inevitable conclusion. It's almost sureal to see how two of the most paranoid homicidal megalomaniacs who ever lived managed to change the world forever at an astounding cost. I guess you can safely say it was always about Stalin and the bolsheviks for Hitler. If he was playing World of Warcraft, the invasion of western Europe was nothing but a sidequest to him to earn some experience points.
Gives a good insight in Hitler's compulsive wish to destroy Stalin and how it basically turned him kind of cooky and made him lose everything. Well, not that he was the epitomy of humble stability in his earlier days, but you get my point. ;)
I'd recommend watching the doc "The War Of The Century - When Hitler Fought Stalin", if you haven't already. Well, if you had, you probably hadn't started this thread. ;)
It details pretyy much the complete history from their early rise to power via their pre-war rivalry to the inevitable conclusion. It's almost sureal to see how two of the most paranoid homicidal megalomaniacs who ever lived managed to change the world forever at an astounding cost. I guess you can safely say it was always about Stalin and the bolsheviks for Hitler. If he was playing World of Warcraft, the invasion of western Europe was nothing but a sidequest to him to earn some experience points.
Gives a good insight in Hitler's compulsive wish to destroy Stalin and how it basically turned him kind of cooky and made him lose everything. Well, not that he was the epitomy of humble stability in his earlier days, but you get my point. ;)
#40075
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
The Russian winnter was very... nasty very cold, an d the military police of the Nazy Germany were realy pack of idiots.
For more detalys investgate Sven Hassel's books. There it's only about the Members of the Heer(german ground army) and theyr's mizerabil (or not) lifes
For more detalys investgate Sven Hassel's books. There it's only about the Members of the Heer(german ground army) and theyr's mizerabil (or not) lifes
#40548
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Many of german tank are not produced for extreme winter condition . . .
An extreme winter in soviet are one of couple problem that slow the german blitzkrieg into russian . . .
Another problem is German tank not support with hydraulic track system that applied on T-34 russian tank for extreme battle environment and to avoid break down when passing trough an infantry trench ,the T-34 use hydraulic track system that make the tank faster and more effective in open battle . . .
Btw ,hitler got a battle exp from ww 1 . . .
He fight in western front and injured by murtard gas . . .
Post Merge: [time]1279092428[/time]
Many of german tank are not produced for extreme winter condition . . .
An extreme winter in soviet are one of couple problem that slow the german blitzkrieg into russian . . .
Another problem is German tank not support with hydraulic track system that applied on T-34 russian tank for extreme battle environment and to avoid break down when passing trough an infantry trench ,the T-34 use hydraulic track system that make the tank faster and more effective in open battle . . .
Btw ,hitler got a battle exp from ww 1 . . .
He fight in western front and injured by murtard gas . . .
An extreme winter in soviet are one of couple problem that slow the german blitzkrieg into russian . . .
Another problem is German tank not support with hydraulic track system that applied on T-34 russian tank for extreme battle environment and to avoid break down when passing trough an infantry trench ,the T-34 use hydraulic track system that make the tank faster and more effective in open battle . . .
Btw ,hitler got a battle exp from ww 1 . . .
He fight in western front and injured by murtard gas . . .
Post Merge: [time]1279092428[/time]
Many of german tank are not produced for extreme winter condition . . .
An extreme winter in soviet are one of couple problem that slow the german blitzkrieg into russian . . .
Another problem is German tank not support with hydraulic track system that applied on T-34 russian tank for extreme battle environment and to avoid break down when passing trough an infantry trench ,the T-34 use hydraulic track system that make the tank faster and more effective in open battle . . .
Btw ,hitler got a battle exp from ww 1 . . .
He fight in western front and injured by murtard gas . . .
What . . . ?
Say it again . . . .
Say it again . . . .
#40553
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
I saw a documentry comparing the winter uniforms of Russia and Germany. When the host wore the Russian uniform he was quite comfortable in extreme cold, wasn't particularly bothered at all. In the German one, he felt like he was going to die after 15 minutes or something. He particularly noted that the boots were absolutely awful and his feet actually needed some medical attention.
If you get into an argument with me, you're wrong.
#40565
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Its a good thing that he got hurt with musturd gas, other wise all of russia would be full of it. Hitler refused to do gases becuase thats the one thing he knew was wrong.
The Russians think there sooo tough, wait till the Ostheer comes...
Coh Name: Seeme
Coh Name: Seeme
#40797
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
If Hitler never got hurt with Mustard gas he never wouldve been pulled out ...if he had never been pulled out he wouldnt have discovered the German workers party ....if he had never discovered the Germans workers party he wouldnt have become a Political figure....if he never became a political figure he wouldnt have become chancellor...if he had never become Chancellor he wouldnt have tried taking over Europe.
Of course there is the chance he survives the war and starts the cycle anyways but whatever :)
Of course there is the chance he survives the war and starts the cycle anyways but whatever :)
Molly: " It's our rock garden"
Dwight: "What are you farming, Bullcrap?"
You Are a Rebel Spy and a traitor to the Empire!
~Darth Vader
Any typos found may be given to Seeme.
Dwight: "What are you farming, Bullcrap?"
You Are a Rebel Spy and a traitor to the Empire!
~Darth Vader
Any typos found may be given to Seeme.
#40885
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
antman311 wrote:UeArtemis wrote:
I'm tired of reading about Ukraine, which is "joyfully greeted the Germans." It was rare and it is only in the west. A small number of traitors does not give the right to say so about the whole Ukraine.
Millions fought for the Soviets, hundreds/thousands of happily greeted the Germans.
Look up the Holodomor. Everyone loathed Stalin. At first, the Germans WERE liberators, until the Einsatzgruppen came in and started killing people. After, both Stalin and Hitler were hated. You can't disregard the fact that at first, Germans WERE liberators.
If you also notice, the Slavic/Soviet Satellite countries changed sides to whoever was winning.
I dont think so. Germans have perhaps been regarded as ''liberators'' by some people, but they werent liberators at all. Think that germans came with ideas like ''lebensraum'', ''untermenschen'' and so! Even the stalinian USSR wasnt that racist. The purpose of german army, was to exterminate the population and to enslave those who resisted. It was a criminal agression, and almost every german soldier was aware of the real purpose of Heer. Thats why immediatly after the beginning of the war, german unit commit atrocities, even before the einsatzgruppen came, and officers never punished them.
So,even if germans were regarded as liberators by some people, they were NOT, even compared to stalin's dictatorship! Russians, ukrainians and other slavic people never liked stalin (after all he was one of the ''best'' dictator ever :P), but they were patriots, or had other motivation to resist.
"Du sublime au ridicule, il n'y a qu'un pas"
-Napoléon Bonaparte
-Napoléon Bonaparte
#40892
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Red_Stinger wrote:antman311 wrote:UeArtemis wrote:
I'm tired of reading about Ukraine, which is "joyfully greeted the Germans." It was rare and it is only in the west. A small number of traitors does not give the right to say so about the whole Ukraine.
Millions fought for the Soviets, hundreds/thousands of happily greeted the Germans.
Look up the Holodomor. Everyone loathed Stalin. At first, the Germans WERE liberators, until the Einsatzgruppen came in and started killing people. After, both Stalin and Hitler were hated. You can't disregard the fact that at first, Germans WERE liberators.
If you also notice, the Slavic/Soviet Satellite countries changed sides to whoever was winning.
I dont think so. Germans have perhaps been regarded as ''liberators'' by some people, but they werent liberators at all. Think that germans came with ideas like ''lebensraum'', ''untermenschen'' and so! Even the stalinian USSR wasnt that racist. The purpose of german army, was to exterminate the population and to enslave those who resisted. It was a criminal agression, and almost every german soldier was aware of the real purpose of Heer. Thats why immediatly after the beginning of the war, german unit commit atrocities, even before the einsatzgruppen came, and officers never punished them.
So,even if germans were regarded as liberators by some people, they were NOT, even compared to stalin's dictatorship! Russians, ukrainians and other slavic people never liked stalin (after all he was one of the ''best'' dictator ever :P), but they were patriots, or had other motivation to resist.
German soldiers was punished in many cases for atrocities. Not like the Red Army were no punishment was made for rape and murder.
#40893
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Red_Stinger, I respect your opinions regarding the so-called "liberation" of Eastern Europe, however;
Wrong. They were even worse. Aside from being Anti-Semitic, the main proponents of Bolshevism were also obsessed with the elimination of social class (i.e. persecution, exile and mass liquidations of the aristocracy/nobility, educated scholars, Officer Corps, ethnic minorities; destruction and looting of cultural artifacts, etc.) and religion (i.e. persecution and exile of religious leaders and clergy, destruction of many places of worship, etc.). These were even far beyond the scope of the Einsatzkommando's operations.
Non sequitur. Again, you are talking about specific SD branches such as the Einsatzgruppen or the Gestapo, and quite possibly the Allgemeine-SS stationed in the camps... but definitely not the Wehrmacht or even the Waffen-SS, which were first and foremost front-line combat elements (some did commit war crimes of course, but war crimes are always present in every war, on ALL sides). Most front-line troops had either not heard, had only some vague/incomplete knowledge about, or had full knowledge/awareness but had no real choice nor power to stop the atrocities being committed. In fact, many of the ones who actually knew about the wretched "Barbarossa Order" were executed after the failed assassination attempts against the Führer.
Hitler's statements were mostly rhetorical and focused mostly on the expulsion of "Untermenschen"; in fact, Himmler was the real shadow power behind the Final Solution---bringing it to fruition by actually implementing it on a grand scale using methods which sometimes appalled even the Führer himself. It was Himmler who ultimately decided that the "elimination" of the said undesirables was more expedient than mere "expulsion".
...and as for "punishment": Officers, Wehrmacht Feldgendarmes, and SS-Feldpolizei were often more than happy to court-martial or even shoot Soldaten who went out of line/showed signs of "defeatism".
Just some food for thought. Cheers ;)
Post Merge: [time]1279503862[/time]
+1 exactly. In fact, many Soviet officers condoned such acts as a retaliation for the misery caused by the war in the Rodina. Soviet troops, the majority of whom had not traveled outside their own country and were unfamiliar with the luxuries which were prevalent in the West, saw it as an opportunity to help themselves to those same luxuries of which they were deprived.
However, the Allies won the war, so many of those among them who had committed crimes were exonerated (except for a few unlucky souls), unlike the Germans.
Wunderwaffen Doctrine: What technology created for us, we drive it towards the enemy.
Red_Stinger wrote:
Even the stalinian USSR wasnt that racist.
Wrong. They were even worse. Aside from being Anti-Semitic, the main proponents of Bolshevism were also obsessed with the elimination of social class (i.e. persecution, exile and mass liquidations of the aristocracy/nobility, educated scholars, Officer Corps, ethnic minorities; destruction and looting of cultural artifacts, etc.) and religion (i.e. persecution and exile of religious leaders and clergy, destruction of many places of worship, etc.). These were even far beyond the scope of the Einsatzkommando's operations.
Quote
The purpose of german army, was to exterminate the population and to enslave those who resisted. It was a criminal agression, and almost every german soldier was aware of the real purpose of Heer. Thats why immediatly after the beginning of the war, german unit commit atrocities, even before the einsatzgruppen came, and officers never punished them.
Non sequitur. Again, you are talking about specific SD branches such as the Einsatzgruppen or the Gestapo, and quite possibly the Allgemeine-SS stationed in the camps... but definitely not the Wehrmacht or even the Waffen-SS, which were first and foremost front-line combat elements (some did commit war crimes of course, but war crimes are always present in every war, on ALL sides). Most front-line troops had either not heard, had only some vague/incomplete knowledge about, or had full knowledge/awareness but had no real choice nor power to stop the atrocities being committed. In fact, many of the ones who actually knew about the wretched "Barbarossa Order" were executed after the failed assassination attempts against the Führer.
Hitler's statements were mostly rhetorical and focused mostly on the expulsion of "Untermenschen"; in fact, Himmler was the real shadow power behind the Final Solution---bringing it to fruition by actually implementing it on a grand scale using methods which sometimes appalled even the Führer himself. It was Himmler who ultimately decided that the "elimination" of the said undesirables was more expedient than mere "expulsion".
...and as for "punishment": Officers, Wehrmacht Feldgendarmes, and SS-Feldpolizei were often more than happy to court-martial or even shoot Soldaten who went out of line/showed signs of "defeatism".
Just some food for thought. Cheers ;)
Post Merge: [time]1279503862[/time]
maxi1991 wrote:Red_Stinger wrote:antman311 wrote:UeArtemis wrote:
I'm tired of reading about Ukraine, which is "joyfully greeted the Germans." It was rare and it is only in the west. A small number of traitors does not give the right to say so about the whole Ukraine.
Millions fought for the Soviets, hundreds/thousands of happily greeted the Germans.
Look up the Holodomor. Everyone loathed Stalin. At first, the Germans WERE liberators, until the Einsatzgruppen came in and started killing people. After, both Stalin and Hitler were hated. You can't disregard the fact that at first, Germans WERE liberators.
If you also notice, the Slavic/Soviet Satellite countries changed sides to whoever was winning.
I dont think so. Germans have perhaps been regarded as ''liberators'' by some people, but they werent liberators at all. Think that germans came with ideas like ''lebensraum'', ''untermenschen'' and so! Even the stalinian USSR wasnt that racist. The purpose of german army, was to exterminate the population and to enslave those who resisted. It was a criminal agression, and almost every german soldier was aware of the real purpose of Heer. Thats why immediatly after the beginning of the war, german unit commit atrocities, even before the einsatzgruppen came, and officers never punished them.
So,even if germans were regarded as liberators by some people, they were NOT, even compared to stalin's dictatorship! Russians, ukrainians and other slavic people never liked stalin (after all he was one of the ''best'' dictator ever :P), but they were patriots, or had other motivation to resist.
German soldiers was punished in many cases for atrocities. Not like the Red Army were no punishment was made for rape and murder.
+1 exactly. In fact, many Soviet officers condoned such acts as a retaliation for the misery caused by the war in the Rodina. Soviet troops, the majority of whom had not traveled outside their own country and were unfamiliar with the luxuries which were prevalent in the West, saw it as an opportunity to help themselves to those same luxuries of which they were deprived.
However, the Allies won the war, so many of those among them who had committed crimes were exonerated (except for a few unlucky souls), unlike the Germans.
Wunderwaffen Doctrine: What technology created for us, we drive it towards the enemy.
Last edited July 22, 2010 at 3:15 AM by Werwolf
#40894
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
German soldiers was punished in many cases for atrocities. Not like the Red Army were no punishment was made for rape and murder.
Edit: Does sure not apply for every soldier, there was light and shadow on both sides. But i'm sick and tired of this Bad Germans - Glorious Soviets thing.
Edit: Does sure not apply for every soldier, there was light and shadow on both sides. But i'm sick and tired of this Bad Germans - Glorious Soviets thing.
Last edited July 21, 2010 at 5:56 PM by maxi1991
#40906
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
maxi1991 wrote:
But i'm sick and tired of this Bad Germans - Glorious Soviets thing.
Its III Reich - civililized exterminators and Soviets - scum in Poland.
#40928
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Germany was worse then Soveits and I dont feel like expaining why in a 3 paragraph post, so am only doing 2 :D
Any stop being on the poor Nazi side and stop trying to act of smart and a know it all, even though the Soveits did horrible war crimes, it was not as bad as Germany.
Its the truth, look it up before trying to be a smarty on the fourm. Fine, dont belive me, just dont tell everyone you a expert on the history of ww2.
Any stop being on the poor Nazi side and stop trying to act of smart and a know it all, even though the Soveits did horrible war crimes, it was not as bad as Germany.
Its the truth, look it up before trying to be a smarty on the fourm. Fine, dont belive me, just dont tell everyone you a expert on the history of ww2.
The Russians think there sooo tough, wait till the Ostheer comes...
Coh Name: Seeme
Coh Name: Seeme
#40941
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Seeme wrote:
Germany was worse then Soveits and I dont feel like expaining why in a 3 paragraph post, so am only doing 2 :D
Any stop being on the poor Nazi side and stop trying to act of smart and a know it all, even though the Soveits did horrible war crimes, it was not as bad as Germany.
Its the truth, look it up before trying to be a smarty on the fourm. Fine, dont belive me, just dont tell everyone you a expert on the history of ww2.
In your 2 paragraphs, you fail to explain why "Germany was worse then Soveits", just clarify that winner writes history. But yeah, especially after the war, soviets soldiers whom had to be punished weren't at all. It was a war, shit happened everywhere, we can't classify neither Germany nor SU to be worse than the other.
Mors Indecepta
Might controls everything, and without strength you cannot protect anything. Let alone yourself...
Might controls everything, and without strength you cannot protect anything. Let alone yourself...
#40945
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Seeme wrote:
Germany was worse then Soveits and I dont feel like expaining why in a 3 paragraph post, so am only doing 2 :D
Any stop being on the poor Nazi side and stop trying to act of smart and a know it all, even though the Soveits did horrible war crimes, it was not as bad as Germany.
Its the truth, look it up before trying to be a smarty on the fourm. Fine, dont belive me, just dont tell everyone you a expert on the history of ww2.
I'm on neither side. I've already had my share of skinhead jerks and unapologetic commie douchebags, thank you very much. From an objective point of view, each side was as bad as the other...two failed extremist ideologies trying to cancel each other out, with a lot of innocent civilians caught in the middle. The funny thing is, no matter how many horrible things would happen in every conflict, "moral ascendancy" would always be bestowed on the victors. ;D
Furthermore, I never claimed to be an expert on anything. I was merely offering my two cents. A dissenting opinion, if you will. ;)
Wunderwaffen Doctrine: What technology created for us, we drive it towards the enemy.
Last edited July 22, 2010 at 3:19 AM by Werwolf
#40955
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Werwolf, how can you respect my opinion about the liberation of europe, since I've never tell you about it? And there is no need for sarcastic word like ''so-called'', which prove btw you dont have any respect for my opinion whatever is it.
And yes, Germany was way more racist than stalinist USSR, since the elimination of a class dont necessary need to kill people. However Germany's purpose was to slaughter millions of people, and to create a Europe where all country woulds be a slave of Germany. And if NKVD killed certainly more people than germans in USSR, its probably because they had far more time to do this. Think about this.
Again, germans troops committed atrocities in all the East. Not only Einsatzgruppen. Saying that few war-crimes were committed by germans is Negationism, nothing less ( should I remember you that 20 millions civilians died? oh sure there are victims of soviets troops!). And germans were NEVER being judged by any tribunal, since the whole army was in USSR to kill and enslave everybody. Soviets were rarely judged for war-crimes, but they were, since they didnt fought any ''sub-humans'' or others. And thoses who committed rape in Berlin, right after the victory, were judged and many of them were executed.
And I'm sick of germanophiles who are obliged to glorify germans. For many people in this forum, it seem that germans were noble soldier, who didnt make any atrocities/war-crimes, and who bravely fought the soviet agressor, and who were more brave, more strong... and such. Please, stop this guy, and lets come back to a rationnal discussion. I'm not a germanophobist, I think germany is a great country like many others ( yes, like russia for example!), but some things said here are crazy.
Like you said guys, Cheers, and hope thats not the beginning of a flame war.
And yes, Germany was way more racist than stalinist USSR, since the elimination of a class dont necessary need to kill people. However Germany's purpose was to slaughter millions of people, and to create a Europe where all country woulds be a slave of Germany. And if NKVD killed certainly more people than germans in USSR, its probably because they had far more time to do this. Think about this.
Again, germans troops committed atrocities in all the East. Not only Einsatzgruppen. Saying that few war-crimes were committed by germans is Negationism, nothing less ( should I remember you that 20 millions civilians died? oh sure there are victims of soviets troops!). And germans were NEVER being judged by any tribunal, since the whole army was in USSR to kill and enslave everybody. Soviets were rarely judged for war-crimes, but they were, since they didnt fought any ''sub-humans'' or others. And thoses who committed rape in Berlin, right after the victory, were judged and many of them were executed.
maxi1991 wrote:
Edit: Does sure not apply for every soldier, there was light and shadow on both sides. But i'm sick and tired of this Bad Germans - Glorious Soviets thing.
And I'm sick of germanophiles who are obliged to glorify germans. For many people in this forum, it seem that germans were noble soldier, who didnt make any atrocities/war-crimes, and who bravely fought the soviet agressor, and who were more brave, more strong... and such. Please, stop this guy, and lets come back to a rationnal discussion. I'm not a germanophobist, I think germany is a great country like many others ( yes, like russia for example!), but some things said here are crazy.
Like you said guys, Cheers, and hope thats not the beginning of a flame war.
"Du sublime au ridicule, il n'y a qu'un pas"
-Napoléon Bonaparte
-Napoléon Bonaparte
#40957
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
On topic: Germany lost because of a number of things. First of all, there was the rather interesting use of troop redeployment that Hitler did. Second of all, there was the Russian winter and the accompanying problems (like the oil in certain tanks to freeze up).Than there is the fact that the Germans had to divide their soldiers over three fronts (Atlantic wall, Africa/Italy, and Soviet front). Also, the German industry was being bombed night and day which surely hampered resupplying of the army. Lastly, I'd say that the logistics were hampered enormously firstly by the Russian scorched earth policy, and secondly by the long distances to friendly territory.
As for the whole "Germans were the devil and Soviet soldiers were angels" debate. In my opinion, both were bad, saying that Hitler was way worse than Stalin is in my opinion stupid. It was Stalin who said: "a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is just a statistic".
Were the Germans the first to commit atrocities, honestly, I don't know. Even if they were, than the pay back which the soviets gave when they were in Germany isn't any less wrong. The defence that says: "they did it first so it was logical that we did it later even though we knew it was bad" even shows that the standards of both groups were low. I'd even go as far and say that it makes the Soviets slightly worse, since they obviously show that they understand that what they did was bad and they did the same thing as the soldiers which they all claimed to be so bad.
I'd say that so far, I've been able to only find one valid reason to say that Hitler (not the German army) was worse than Stalin (not the Soviet army), and that reason is as follows: Hitler took the killing of people to an industrial level, his death camps were basically factories designed to kill people in the most effective way. As far as I know, Stalin did not have any death factories, just work camps.
As for the Germans being worse than the Soviets or vice versa discussion, if you're talking about the armies, I'd say they are equally bad.
Cheers
As for the whole "Germans were the devil and Soviet soldiers were angels" debate. In my opinion, both were bad, saying that Hitler was way worse than Stalin is in my opinion stupid. It was Stalin who said: "a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is just a statistic".
Were the Germans the first to commit atrocities, honestly, I don't know. Even if they were, than the pay back which the soviets gave when they were in Germany isn't any less wrong. The defence that says: "they did it first so it was logical that we did it later even though we knew it was bad" even shows that the standards of both groups were low. I'd even go as far and say that it makes the Soviets slightly worse, since they obviously show that they understand that what they did was bad and they did the same thing as the soldiers which they all claimed to be so bad.
I'd say that so far, I've been able to only find one valid reason to say that Hitler (not the German army) was worse than Stalin (not the Soviet army), and that reason is as follows: Hitler took the killing of people to an industrial level, his death camps were basically factories designed to kill people in the most effective way. As far as I know, Stalin did not have any death factories, just work camps.
As for the Germans being worse than the Soviets or vice versa discussion, if you're talking about the armies, I'd say they are equally bad.
Cheers
#40965
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Red_Stinger wrote:
Werwolf, how can you respect my opinion about the liberation of europe, since I've never tell you about it? And there is no need for sarcastic word like ''so-called'', which prove btw you dont have any respect for my opinion whatever is it.
And yes, Germany was way more racist than stalinist USSR, since the elimination of a class dont necessary need to kill people. However Germany's purpose was to slaughter millions of people, and to create a Europe where all country woulds be a slave of Germany. And if NKVD killed certainly more people than germans in USSR, its probably because they had far more time to do this. Think about this.
Again, germans troops committed atrocities in all the East. Not only Einsatzgruppen. Saying that few war-crimes were committed by germans is Negationism, nothing less ( should I remember you that 20 millions civilians died? oh sure there are victims of soviets troops!). And germans were NEVER being judged by any tribunal, since the whole army was in USSR to kill and enslave everybody. Soviets were rarely judged for war-crimes, but they were, since they didnt fought any ''sub-humans'' or others. And thoses who committed rape in Berlin, right after the victory, were judged and many of them were executed.maxi1991 wrote:
Edit: Does sure not apply for every soldier, there was light and shadow on both sides. But i'm sick and tired of this Bad Germans - Glorious Soviets thing.
And I'm sick of germanophiles who are obliged to glorify germans. For many people in this forum, it seem that germans were noble soldier, who didnt make any atrocities/war-crimes, and who bravely fought the soviet agressor, and who were more brave, more strong... and such. Please, stop this guy, and lets come back to a rationnal discussion. I'm not a germanophobist, I think germany is a great country like many others ( yes, like russia for example!), but some things said here are crazy.
Like you said guys, Cheers, and hope thats not the beginning of a flame war.
Dear Red_Stinger,
it ain't about playing down germany's crimes. On both sides most soldiers were only fighting for their country, but there were also black sheeps on both sides. And in this Forum in my eyes some people(i don't mean specially you, it's more some other people) demonize ALL Germans as murderers and at the same time they only say how great Soviet Union was. I'm not germanophile i only want that things are objective(don't know if this word makes sense in english).
Edit:
Btw it doesn't matter if stalin or hitler killed more. Slaughter of Millions is Slaughter of Millions. I mean if one killed xMillions and the other killed yMillions it doesn't matter that much, in this scale of numbers there is no difference about who was how bad.
Last edited July 22, 2010 at 2:12 PM by maxi1991
#40966
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Red_Stinger wrote:
Werwolf, how can you respect my opinion about the liberation of europe, since I've never tell you about it? And there is no need for sarcastic word like ''so-called'', which prove btw you dont have any respect for my opinion whatever is it.
My apologies if you were offended mate. I meant no disrespect. My use of "so called" was merely because I don't believe that the Germans liberated Europe either, unlike what many people are trying to say (ergo, I wasn't disagreeing with you on that point). And, of course I believe (with good faith) that anything posted in an academic forum also counts as an opinion. ;)
No worries, this is an academic discussion, not a flame war. There is no need to make things too personal...which we scholars of the Law refer to as argumentum ad hominem (argument against the person; i.e. character assassination), according to the lexicon of legal terms in international jurisprudence. And also, making arguments, offering dissenting opinions and constructing counter-rebuttals are actually good mental exercises. On finit toujours par mépriser ceux qui sont trop facilement de notre avis. Non? :D
Quote
Saying that few war-crimes were committed by germans is Negationism, nothing less ( should I remember you that 20 millions civilians died? oh sure there are victims of soviets troops!)
We're treading on pretty dangerous ground here...I wasn't negating anything nor was I acting in any capacity as an apologist for Nazi atrocities. This is just a simple CoH forum, not a petition board for the Simon Wiesenthal Center. I was merely trying to balance the argument by not making unfounded hasty generalizations (e.g. "ALL Wehrmacht soldiers wanted to slaughter and occupy Europe"). The Blitzkrieg/occupation in Europe may have been illegal, but it doesn't follow nor prove that EVERYONE who was involved in it was evil...hence, it would be a non sequitur in my book. Just an honest clarification, nothing more. ;)
________________
Okay people, first and foremost, IMHO WW2 wasn't a war of liberation, it was a war of retaliation which gathered steam when the first landser stepped on Polish soil and bombs started falling on Britain. It was a war to reclaim old territory, gain new ones, and to assuage wounded national pride left over after WW1. It was a war based on a pretext created to justify the invasion and occupation of neighboring European states. Therefore, in a sense, the war was illegal given that the evidence (staged attacks and falsified reports)---and the means used (retaliatory invasion) to justify it---was illegal.
However, the means used by the Allies in occupying Europe were also illegal, since as per the Potsdam Conference they willingly allowed the Soviets to hold onto territory they were certainly not entitled to (and which they [Western Allies] certainly weren't in any position to decide for themselves!) ...which was a big mistake on their part, esp. during the Cold War as the majority of those occupied states eventually formed the bulk of the Warsaw Pact. :-\
EDIT: As a matter of fact, America used the same pretext to justify the invasion of Iraq (fake WMD sites and inaccurate/falsified intelligence). They used a modified version of "Lebensraum" to get an iron grip on the oil monopoly AND to eliminate a perceived threat (Saddam Hussein). Hence, the American occupation of Iraq is also illegal, based on the same principle.
________________
That said, despite the fact that Germany was certainly the most advanced nation of its time, it obviously lost due to many factors which precipitated its downfall (I will not elaborate because many others have said this way better than I ever could ;D), but the MAIN reason was also because the Nazis were logistically flawed, despite their "efficiency" in all other aspects. :)
Post Merge: [time]1279435104[/time]
maxi1991 wrote:Red_Stinger wrote:
Werwolf, how can you respect my opinion about the liberation of europe, since I've never tell you about it? And there is no need for sarcastic word like ''so-called'', which prove btw you dont have any respect for my opinion whatever is it.
And yes, Germany was way more racist than stalinist USSR, since the elimination of a class dont necessary need to kill people. However Germany's purpose was to slaughter millions of people, and to create a Europe where all country woulds be a slave of Germany. And if NKVD killed certainly more people than germans in USSR, its probably because they had far more time to do this. Think about this.
Again, germans troops committed atrocities in all the East. Not only Einsatzgruppen. Saying that few war-crimes were committed by germans is Negationism, nothing less ( should I remember you that 20 millions civilians died? oh sure there are victims of soviets troops!). And germans were NEVER being judged by any tribunal, since the whole army was in USSR to kill and enslave everybody. Soviets were rarely judged for war-crimes, but they were, since they didnt fought any ''sub-humans'' or others. And thoses who committed rape in Berlin, right after the victory, were judged and many of them were executed.maxi1991 wrote:
Edit: Does sure not apply for every soldier, there was light and shadow on both sides. But i'm sick and tired of this Bad Germans - Glorious Soviets thing.
And I'm sick of germanophiles who are obliged to glorify germans. For many people in this forum, it seem that germans were noble soldier, who didnt make any atrocities/war-crimes, and who bravely fought the soviet agressor, and who were more brave, more strong... and such. Please, stop this guy, and lets come back to a rationnal discussion. I'm not a germanophobist, I think germany is a great country like many others ( yes, like russia for example!), but some things said here are crazy.
Like you said guys, Cheers, and hope thats not the beginning of a flame war.
Dear Red_Stinger,
it ain't about playing down germany's crimes. On both sides most soldiers were only fighting for their country, but there were also black sheeps on both sides. And in this Forum in my eyes some people(i don't mean specially you, it's more some other people) demonize ALL Germans as murderers and at the same time they only say how great Soviet Union was. I'm not germanophile i only want that things are objective(don't know if this word makes sense in english).
Edit:
Btw it doesn't matter if stalin or hitler killed more. Slaughter of Millions is Slaughter of Millions. I mean if one killed xMillions and the other killed yMillions it doesn't matter that much, in this scale of numbers there is no difference about who was how bad.
+1
I agree. Slaughter will always be slaughter, no matter how many times people sugar-coat them, provide excuses and sweep them under the rug.
War is heck.
Wunderwaffen Doctrine: What technology created for us, we drive it towards the enemy.
Last edited July 22, 2010 at 7:30 PM by Werwolf
#40981
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
Adolf Hitler was psycho maniac who did not know what he wanted , his ideologies which were derived from emotion inspired weren't practical at all , he was neither a brilliant strategist nor a prudent leader , he and his third reich with men like
hans von groebel
the geinham statpolize or the gestapo cheif(i dont remember his name)
and the SS generals were all mad fanaticists
Their own imprudence led them to the path of devastation , especially on the easter front
Millitary ambitions are allright , but what abt the jews ??? , I dont have to repeat history but this clearly proved that he was a madman with no sense of military strategy , thats why , the third reich were not liberators they were lunatics , and i don't know why the german people believed in him
Ny ways to sum up
1. No sense of military strategy
2. T-34
3 . Underestimation of the soviet climate
as somebody said afore the same mistake was made by napolean in his conquest of russia but hitler didnt realize that he was too proud of "German Engineering"
hans von groebel
the geinham statpolize or the gestapo cheif(i dont remember his name)
and the SS generals were all mad fanaticists
Their own imprudence led them to the path of devastation , especially on the easter front
Millitary ambitions are allright , but what abt the jews ??? , I dont have to repeat history but this clearly proved that he was a madman with no sense of military strategy , thats why , the third reich were not liberators they were lunatics , and i don't know why the german people believed in him
Ny ways to sum up
1. No sense of military strategy
2. T-34
3 . Underestimation of the soviet climate
as somebody said afore the same mistake was made by napolean in his conquest of russia but hitler didnt realize that he was too proud of "German Engineering"
The sound of 17 pounder ap shells tearing down panzers
Is music to my ears!!
Is music to my ears!!
#40984
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
AbhMkh wrote:
2. T-34
T-34 is overestimated. IT'S JUST A GOOD SOLID TANK but not more.
#40986
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
AbhMkh wrote:
hans von groebel
the geinham statpolize or the gestapo cheif(i dont remember his name)
and the SS generals were all mad fanaticists
Just a few corrections:
- Hans von Gröbel is a fictional character from Codename: Panzers. ;D
- as for the Gestapo Chief(s), you're either referring to SS-Gruppenführer und Generalleutnant der Polizei Heinrich Müller, or his immediate superior Reinhard Heydrich, Stellvertretender Reichsprotektor of Bohemia and Moravia (who was, ironically, a Jew).
- fanaticists >> fanatics.
- geinham statpolize cheif >> Geheime Staatspolizei (Gestapo) Chief.
Cheers, mate ;)
Wunderwaffen Doctrine: What technology created for us, we drive it towards the enemy.
Last edited July 22, 2010 at 7:24 PM by Werwolf
#41005
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
What do you mean? Hans von Grobel was really and he PWN.
Hes, like, the bets person in the world! He killed 2000 tounsand men!!! Who are you to think hes not real????
Lol JK
Hes, like, the bets person in the world! He killed 2000 tounsand men!!! Who are you to think hes not real????
Lol JK
The Russians think there sooo tough, wait till the Ostheer comes...
Coh Name: Seeme
Coh Name: Seeme
#41019
Re: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front
I'm sorry abt the spellings, i was feeling a bit sleepy when i wrote this..... ;D
I was actually referring to the German propaganda minister(he was something Hans Von...)
You seem to be German werewolf , otherwise no one makes such fine corrections to the "German spellings" :D :D
and yeah its fanatics , lool, happens to many of us , getting even the most simplest spellings wrong ;D ;D ;D
As to the T-34 it is one of the major reasons of the Germans loosing the war , it made a super power out of Russia later on....
I was actually referring to the German propaganda minister(he was something Hans Von...)
You seem to be German werewolf , otherwise no one makes such fine corrections to the "German spellings" :D :D
and yeah its fanatics , lool, happens to many of us , getting even the most simplest spellings wrong ;D ;D ;D
As to the T-34 it is one of the major reasons of the Germans loosing the war , it made a super power out of Russia later on....
The sound of 17 pounder ap shells tearing down panzers
Is music to my ears!!
Is music to my ears!!