Who defeated Hitler? Soviet Union or the US? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The Second World War (1939-1945).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Maksym
#1097975
Also the Nazi concept of a racial war was totally flawed, in some parts of Russia the Germans were welcomed by the villagers. Having read some of the accounts of the campaign from the Germans it is interesting to read that front line soldiers and officers were often better behaved than the rear area troops that came behind them - which included the SS Death Squads. This is not to say all Wehrmacht troops on the front lines were on their best behavior, but the attitude of the Conquering German seems to have been largely a product of the Rear Area troops who would take over an area after the front line troops have moved on.


You cannot really sum up the entire attitudes of millions in a campaign of such magnitude. Judging an army by individual accounts and beliefs is always secondary. Individual actions usually have opposite, unintended consequences from the original plans. You are partially right summing up the attitudes of conscripts, but only partially. It must be taken into account the average German was brainwashed to believe in the merits of expansionism and extermination of the Slavic peoples. The actions of a unit towards the civilian population were determined by the character of the officers.

Collaboration was most fervent among Ukrainian Catholics and minority of Muslims. The prominence and power of the church was the vehicle for mass recruitment among Ukrainian collaborators.


But there was one key word in the plan that Hitler didn't like, withdrawal. To Hitler the German soldier ether fight where he stood, or died where he stood.


The Germans made key withdrawals around Smolensk in August of 1941, saving many troops from encirclement. In the case of Stalingrad, the Germans believed the Soviet army was beaten and allowed arrogance to dominate over competent decision making.

I think one of the initial plans raised by one of the General Staff officers had the best plan to succeed, it called for rapid thrusts to capture key locations, followed by a period of withdrawal and consolidation. Which would then be followed by another period of rapid thrusts and withdrawal and consolidation - in effect to slowly take bites out of the USSR. This plan showed promise as it recognized the problems of bringing up supples over long distances and the problems out a rapid thrust outrunning its supply lines (a problem Patton faced many times).


I believe you are describing the nature of operational actions of the Wehrmacht, not the grand plans for the campaign. The main debate was marching straight towards Moscow or supporting thrusts towards Leningrad and Ukraine, then attacking Moscow from all sides.

The German war industry didn't go onto a war footing until late in the war, even in the finial days it was still outputting material although it had been bombed to dust. I've even seen photos of an open air factory in a forest to make the jet powered ME262.


True, the problem was the logistical network for the Germans.

The USSR simply packed up the plants and shiped them by train away from the Germans, the factory workers walking along the sides of the railways were even getting strafed by German fighters.


Yes, the critical actions around Smolensk were paramount for the success of relocating industry and manpower to the Urals. The German advance was stalled for seven weeks in the centre.

As for manpower, the Russians pulled in everyone it could get its hands on. Hans von Luck wrote in his book, Panzer Commander, about how he was surprised to see Mongolians in the Soviet army. Siegfried Knappe wrote in his book, Soldat, that he was astounded by the wave attacks of Russian infantry that just kept coming on, getting larger and larger with each wave. And when German troops counter attacked, there was so much Russian artillery that individual artillery guns were fireing at individual German soldiers!


Hehe, calling Soviet soldiers “Mongolians” is probably more about ignorance and a lack of knowledge about Uzbeks and Kyrgyz. The human wave tactic is nonsense.

Shade2
1-People don't join Nazis, just because they are under occupation. Slave workers were notorious for sabotage and lousy work, not to mention obvious lack of motivation. Likewise the industry and transport in occupied areas was continously sabotaged, which hindered German exploitation. It doesn't equal to German industry.
2-Military of allied nations was of varied quality and motivation, it also cannot be seen as the same of core nation. For example Romanians were known for their lack of motivation after reaching their goals against USSR while Hungarian soldiers sold weapons to Home Army in Poland and supplied it with tactical information.


Okay.
Last edited by Maksym on 18 Jan 2007 02:39, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Sissok Nagazi
#1097977
The point is the Soviets did not have a manpower advantage in industry and troops, especially when 1942 began.


How do you figure that? More then 34 million people served in the Red Army over the course of WW2 if that isn't a manpower advantage then what is?

As for industry lets have a look at Soviet war-time output:

Tanks and self-propelled guns
(Ranked #1)Soviet Union = 105,251 (92,595)
Artillery
(Ranked #1)Soviet Union = 516,648
Machineguns
(Ranked #2)Soviet Union = 1,477,400
Military trucks
(Ranked #5)Soviet Union = 197,100
Military aircraft of all types
(Ranked #3)Soviet Union = 157,261

Keep in mind that list above is from June 41' to May 45' which is a far shorter timespan to produce in then some of the western nations had.

I can't at this time find a list of just how many factories or how every many coal mines, etc there were but the information exists in books. I'm not going to pay 14.95 though.

Although the Soviet Union was getting aid and weapons from the United States under the lend-lease program, the Soviet production of war materials was greater than that of Nazi Germany because of rapid growth of Soviet industrial production during the interwar years (additional supplies from lend-lease accounted for about 10-12% of the Soviet Union's own industrial output)
Last edited by Sissok Nagazi on 18 Jan 2007 02:40, edited 1 time in total.
By imagicnation
#1097980
The biggest difference between American and German production, was the fact the British and Americans were bombing German industry day and night, the American industrial concerns were far from the battlefield and safe with no disruptions from bombing.

Actually, German production right up into 1945 was at 93% capacity. 1944-5 also saw the peak production of planes and tanks, despite the fact this was the time that German cities were being bombed the most.
User avatar
By Maksym
#1097985
How do you figure that? More then 34 million people served in the Red Army over the course of WW2 if that isn't a manpower advantage then what is?


I’m not addressing output or the success of total war implemented by Soviet policy. I’m addressing the notion the Soviets had more people to work in industry and an unlimited supply of soldiers. The manpower for industry was always an advantage for the Germans, poor mobilization was the problem. As for the army, after 1942 the pool was close to even for German vs. Russian. When you include the Axis allies the Germans might have had an advantage.
User avatar
By Tailz
#1097996
Imagicnation wrote:
Actually, German production right up into 1945 was at 93% capacity. 1944-5 also saw the peak production of planes and tanks, despite the fact this was the time that German cities were being bombed the most.

I made a comment about that a few posts ago, about how Germany didn't ramp up production until fairly late in the war - as you wrote, peek production was 1944-45, considering the war started in 1939?
By Shade2
#1098028
but their industry and military did play their part.

Ekhem, industry and military doesn't work on its own. It needs people. If you talk about military supplies, well it was mostly spent in war against Germany, the only real benefit Germany had from conquest was agriculture products and financial reserves.
By Smilin' Dave
#1098193
My point thought is, that if the German plans had succeeded as originally planned, those troops wouldn't have mattered. I have then put forward my reasons for why the German's plans didn't go according to plan.

I don't even know where to begin with this...

Maybe German plans didn't turn out because of their own incompetance and a little thing called friction? Friction provided in no small part by the Red Army?

I might point out you still haven't established the German plan yet, throwing into chaos the whole idea of the BoB messing up an earlier attack.

Sorry, I thought they were the same thing

It is a question of scale. Battle vs. campaign say. These different scales are fought by different kinds of officers and with different political interactions.

I do love how you've said that for this point and in the next you suggest your own potentially oppinionated text

Yes, I'm aware of that.

Consider this then. John Keegan wrote his works on WWII when delving into the Nazi archives was still a new process and not everything was open (since a lot of it was on the wrong side of the iron curtain). So maybe when John Keegan put forward the idea of delay due to the BoB it was correct, but subsequent works have proven this dubious. And part of this is these more recent works have had better evidence to use.

However I do need to know what you meant by 'at this earlier start date'

If you are asking for an exact date, I don't have one... I'm not sure you do either.

There would be a difference between the Axis wanting to go earlier, and actually planning for it.

There is also a difference between delay due to unavoidable weather, and delay due to action in other theatres.

Hang on, it was you who in a previous post said that the planes were being diverted to the Soviet front. How can you say that units were being taken from the Battle of Britain, which had gone way overtime, but were not delayed?

By my simple understanding that the later stages of the BoB were fought with much diminished forces...

Hence for all we know, the units that started redeployment before the BoB actually ended were ear tagged to be shifted all along and there was no significant delay. Further the BoB experienced the transfer of ground troops much earlier.

Now, let me attack this from another angle. Considering the success the Luftwaffe enjoyed in 1941, how can you claim that the delay was significant? It would suggest that even if the BoB were a cause for delay, it didn't help the Soviets that much, since they were being creamed in the skies anyway. Since you are starting to accept that the weather delay wasn't the only factor, this puts your very first argument into question.

Except for the fact Stalin was expecting the attack in 1942 and if the Nazis didn't attack soon, they would have headed straight into a Russian Winter.

This just doesn't relate to the topic. These points are only relevant if there had been even more delay that had actually been experienced.

Hitler would never have allowed for preperation of a winter for his troops; he fanatically thought his Blitzkreig would work so well he wouldn't have to face it.

Except Hitler didn't make those decisions really... his generals did. It's not like Hitler was organising the train timetables, he was too much of a dilatente for that.

This in turn suggests that it was the German military over all that was unprepared for winter... or even autumn. The poor all-terrain performance of German tanks wasn't something that happened in 1941, it was an unexpected flaw dating back to the 1930s.

It is also not like the Germans were not aware of how much time they had to win the war before the weather went bad. Which brings into question the idea that they were voluntarilly holding back.
By imagicnation
#1098221
Honestly, I can't handle this. We are just repeating what we have earlier said. I shall instead say my view as simply as possible:
The Second World War was not won by a single nation in the Allies; it took a team effort. Evidence (can't be bothered citing) shows that German planning, equipment and overall preparations for war were not upto the immense task that was required of them. Also, the lack of co-ordination and workable strategic plans lead to campaigns being botched, armies left to be slaughtered and such high expectations of units that could not be achieved.
Any historical source will tell you that the Russian Winters of 1941-43 inflicted huge amounts of damage on the German Army, which was not prepared for winter conflict. One popular theory for this is that the original invasion date had been set far earlier. However, various factors including weather, pockets of resistence and general inefficiency among the German Army, slowed the Army and inflicted such injuries (23% of the force by the Battle of Moscow) that it was subsequently pushed back by an army that had the numbers and equipment to handle the warfare of the Eastern Front.
However, if it had not been for the campaigns at Sea, in Africa, aerial attack on Britain and defence of Germany, as well as the many resistence members throughout occupied countries, Germany would have had more resources and troops to fight in the battle against the Soviets.
User avatar
By Tailz
#1098751
Shade2 wrote:
Ekhem, industry and military doesn't work on its own. It needs people. If you talk about military supplies, well it was mostly spent in war against Germany, the only real benefit Germany had from conquest was agriculture products and financial reserves.

Yes certainly a good portion of supplies from the conquered countries was expended fighting the Germans in the first place. But once conquered the Germans were able to amass a good deal of material from captured stores. On the Russian front large amounts of military equipment was captured, so much so that a lot of Atlantic Wall cannons were of Russin manufacture - captured in Russia and exported across Europe and installed in the Atlantic Wall.

Also there was the existing industry that the Germans were able to put back into service for themselves. The Skoda Tank Factory is a good example of this, once Czechoslovakia was conquered the Germans were able to keep the Skoda plants working on manufacturing tanks (the Germans thought highly of the Panzer 38t, made at Skoda). There were also other plants that were kept in operation manufacturing arms for the German army, I seem to remember something about a plant that made a lisence copy of an American pistol (a Browning?), that was kept in production with produced units destined for SS units.

You may be thinking that once conquered the inhabitants of these conquered countries refused to help the Germans, its a nice thought, but far from reality. People need to eat, they need clothing to keep warm, they need oil to cook, they need money to pay rent and for food, they needed ration stamps and identity cards. All these things were controlled - so the people continued to go to work. Even if they worked at a tank factory that now produced tanks for the Germans. Sure there was sabotage, but the horrible response from the Germans for sabotage stopped a vast amount of it.

Why risk your own neck, and maybe the necks of your family and a lot of other people for the chance of causing a tank or train to malfunction - it might be the heroic thing to do, but it could also get a lot of your fellow countrymen killed - and quite often, it did.

There were also volunteers from the various occupied nations who joined the German Wehrmacht and Auxiliary Forces. (example: Foreign Volunteers in the German Wehrmacht in WWII, see: Polish Volunteers in the German Wehrmacht and Auxiliary Forces during WWII). Nearly 2,000,000 foreigners joined the Wehmacht,units such as 5.SS-Panzer-Division Wiking was almost entirly made up of Swiss Volunteers.

It all adds up.
By Shade2
#1098855
I recommend that you read what you link to, you will avoid mistakes, the link is about Germans with Polish citizenship that joined Germany(in fact they attacked Poland in 1939)
There existed in Poland, as in nearly every other region of Europe during the time of WWII, a distinct group that was ripe for voluntary or conscripted service within or alongside the Reich. This group was known as the Volksdeutsche. Volksdeutsche were historic ethnic enclaves resident beyond the German boarder that for political and/or traditional reasons were considered a part of greater Germany.

There were 741,000 Germans in Poland before the war, IIRC 80-100,000 served in Selbstschutz.
Nearly 2,000,000 foreigners joined the Wehmacht,units such as 5.SS-Panzer-Division Wiking was almost entirly made up of Swiss Volunteers.

It all adds up.

Poles as subhumans weren't allowed into SS. There wasn't any contribution from Polish population into Wehrmacht.
If you can read German this article studies it rather completely:
http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/ZIMOS/foru ... kochan.htm
Jerzy Kochanowski

Polen in die Wehrmacht? Zu einem wenig erforschten Aspekt der nationalsozialistischen Besatzungspolitik 1939-1945. Eine Problemskizze


Here is the total number of volunteers Germany got when it played with the idea of any Polish unit:
Bis Anfang Dezember 1944 gelang es nach Angaben der Delegatur im Generalgouvernement 471 Freiwillige anzuwerben.

471 volunteers-they were mostly criminals from concentration camps, who were promised to be relased, also some from catchings, the unit was to be started with 5000 people, but it never got that number.


The German history in regards to Poles from past centuries, limited any cooperation to few desperate ideologists like Studnicki or criminals. Studnicki btw ended in mental asylum. Which likely speaks what kind of people considered alliance between Poles and Germans.
User avatar
By Tailz
#1098909
Shade2 wrote:
I recommend that you read what you link to, you will avoid mistakes, the link is about Germans with Polish citizenship that joined Germany(in fact they attacked Poland in 1939)

There existed in Poland, as in nearly every other region of Europe during the time of WWII, a distinct group that was ripe for voluntary or conscripted service within or alongside the Reich. This group was known as the Volksdeutsche. Volksdeutsche were historic ethnic enclaves resident beyond the German boarder that for political and/or traditional reasons were considered a part of greater Germany.

I know what you mean, thats why I also linked to the core page that listed other countries as well.

You forgot to add the rest of that paragraph you quoted:
It was from among these groups that the Germans first gathered volunteers from Poland. Although they are not technically thought of as Poles by the Germans, the ethnic German Volksdeutsche were in reality from Poland and can thus be seen as Polish volunteers.

Poles as subhumans weren't allowed into SS. There wasn't any contribution from Polish population into Wehrmacht.
If you can read German this article studies it rather completely:
http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/ZIMOS/foru ... kochan.htm

Your concentrating on the Polish, initially I was talking about the whole - The voluntaries from Poland where a part of the whole, even if they were a little part.

Poles as subhumans weren't allowed into SS. There wasn't any contribution from Polish population into Wehrmacht.
If you can read German this article studies it rather completely:
http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/ZIMOS/foru ... kochan.htm

Do you have this translated into English? I'm not bi-lingual unfortunately - wish I was.

Here is the total number of volunteers Germany got when it played with the idea of any Polish unit:
Bis Anfang Dezember 1944 gelang es nach Angaben der Delegatur im Generalgouvernement 471 Freiwillige anzuwerben.

471 volunteers-they were mostly criminals from concentration camps, who were promised to be relased, also some from catchings, the unit was to be started with 5000 people, but it never got that number.

Thats very interesting, do you have other sources I could read?

The German history in regards to Poles from past centuries, limited any cooperation to few desperate ideologists like Studnicki or criminals. Studnicki btw ended in mental asylum. Which likely speaks what kind of people considered alliance between Poles and Germans.

Penal units were formed by both the Germans and the Russians from what I remember.

But your focusing on Poland only at this point, in my post above, I was talking about war materials, industry, manpower, etc - and about this supply gains from all occupied countries, not just Poland alone.
By Shade2
#1098925
You forgot to add the rest of that paragraph you quoted:
It was from among these groups that the Germans first gathered volunteers from Poland. Although they are not technically thought of as Poles by the Germans, the ethnic German Volksdeutsche were in reality from Poland and can thus be seen as Polish volunteers.

Yes, in the same way Volga Germans were Russia volunteers, Sudentengermans were Czech volunteers, French Germans were French volunteers and so on.
User avatar
By Red Rebel
#1098955
Who defeated Hitler? Soviet Union or the US?


Looking at who defeated the Wehrmacht, it was the Red Army. The US did get a huge army together, bombed the crap out of a lot of stuff, navaly invaded Europe twice, and had plenty of supplies. But Russia is to Germany as Iraq is currently to America. People dread talking about. There is no win, there is only less loss. Except in this case the Iraqis (Russians) would be at America (Germanys) doorstep. Besides, you didn't see Germans flee East.

Another idea is that Hitler defeated Hitler. :p
By CheLives
#1123877
The Americans supplied the Germans, before, during and after the war. It is not even debatable - the communist lead partisans and the USSR defeated the Germans.

Here is a great article on the myths and lies about the US in the great patriotic war:

http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/cd4.html
User avatar
By Thoss
#1123907
The Americans supplied the Germans, before, during and after the war.


Before? Probably. During? I don't think so. After? Definately.


It is not even debatable - the communist lead partisans and the USSR defeated the Germans.


I can assure you it is debatable.

Communist lead partisans? So does that mean non-communist partisans sat on their hands?

The USSR did not alone defeat the Germans. They took the bulk of the mauling from the Wehrmacht forsure, but it was not an solo Soviet effort. As mentioned previously it was a team of convience - each contributing.

The Soviets paid in blood, the British paid in time, and the Americans paid.


Here is a great article on the myths and lies about the US in the great patriotic war:


There is nothing remotely historical about this article.
By Shade2
#1124272
It is not even debatable - the communist lead partisans and the USSR defeated the Germans.

Actually USSR and soviet partisans cooperated with Nazi Reich against Allies, this cooperation actually lasted after 1941...
User avatar
By jaakko
#1124406
Actually USSR and soviet partisans cooperated with Nazi Reich against Allies

Including the USSR? How strange...

What's even more strange, is to think how was it possible when the alliance was only formed by 1942...
User avatar
By Thoss
#1124411
he Americans supplied the Germans, before, during and after the war.


It completely slipped by mind. While you were preaching anti-american diatribe for conducting private business with the Nazis, it was the Soviet Union who were near allies of the Third Riech and continued supplying Germany even after Barabrossa.

If anyone has blood on their hands for collaberating with the Nazis its Stalinist Russia. For a lengthy period of the War it was only the British who stood against Hitler while Stalin built up his machine at the expense of the Allied cause.
By Shade2
#1124465
Including the USSR? How strange...

What's even more strange, is to think how was it possible when the alliance was only formed by 1942...

Soviet agents and partisans under command from Moscow engaged in cooperation with Gestapo(even after 1941) to capture Allied resistance members.
User avatar
By MB.
#1124466
Mr Bill Wrote:
Quote:
The Soviets didn't even have a semi-automatic rifle!

There was the Avtomaticheskaia Vintovka Simonova (AVS36), introduced in 1936.


Ugh, I was kidding.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 14

I think the book was also a satire of fascism and […]

Israelis don't like agreements with the Palestin[…]

(2) @Pants-of-dog , I do not think that anyone[…]

I did not claim they were voting en masse So, n[…]