Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is the most overlooked, undervalued, underestimated aspect of WWII?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Germans as occupiers in both World Wars

    Originally posted by NoPref View Post
    There were a good number of older people in the occupied areas of the USSR who remembered the German occupation during WWI and expected similar behavior in 1941. For many, the WWI conditions under the Germans would have been an improvement over 1941 conditions under Stalin. Nazi behavior quickly disabused them of that notion.
    A very good and much overlooked aspect of the war indeed.
    It was noted during the Great War by many Jews living in areas of (present-day) Poland, Ukraine etc. that they felt much relieved and impressed by the behavior of the German occupiers.
    They compared very favorably against the Tsarist predecessors who allowed pogroms, wide-spread harassment and discrimination et al.

    It would be fascinating if there were any memoirs by a German officer who experienced both occupations - compare and contrast.

    Regards
    lodestar

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jazsa View Post
      Not even taking into account the extra production resulting from not having it's factories bombed the Germans can field an extra 10000 fully crewed and supplied heavy anti-aircraft guns (alot of 88s) against the Russian's. Work crews utilised repairing bomb damage can be used to improve the logistical situation on the eastern front.
      Just where would the Germans get the required prime movers and the fuel for moving all those guns and crews?

      You are arguing the "no war with the West" what if without actually considering the real consequences.
      1) Germany has to guard its Western border against the French who have a long history of working with Russia to contain Germany. France has over 2000 tanks and a modernizing airforce. We know the French army was flawed by doctrine but the Germans didn't. DAK plus Second army are required on this border.
      2) Germany does not have the loot it stole from the West. No extra raw materials, especially fuel. No extra trucks. The Wehrmacht used tens of thousands of French and other western trucks to motorize itself
      3) The Germans used captured french tanks to outfit some battalions used in Russia. Furthermore they used them to train up three new panzer regiments.
      4) The Italians are out and the Romanians and their oil are probably out too.
      5) The French campaign taught the Germans that their tanks were under gunned.

      You are arguing that a smaller, weaker, less mobile wehrmacht with much less fuel would somehow defeat the Red Army when the historical army couldn't.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
        There has never been a 'War to End Wars", which was the sanguine expectation, in some quarters, after 1918.
        But are you arguing that there's no such thing as a righteous war? Should we just hold up our hands, admit that humankind is inherently flawed, and leave it at that ?
        yes ..'flawed'
        there have always been wars/conflicts...and always will be
        humans rape/murder/kill/rob/etc
        and they always will
        ..going to a base point, you have to teach kids not to be selfish--not to be mean
        ...we should be very leery of trying to intervene in conflicts...and there are many of them, yes?
        ...what do you want to do? waste billions trying to make humans inhuman?--impossible
        so much $ wasted....in fact so much money spent and it created more
        problems--Bay of Pigs, Iran-Mossadegh, Vietnam, Iran -Contra, Alliance for Progress started by JFK--waste waste waste---etc

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jazsa View Post
          It's not enough. They get to bring their equipment but there is no extra industrial capacity to replace it once it's gone. Without lend lease Russian industry will not be able to meet historical production let alone provide replacement equipment for those additional troops in combat.

          Not even taking into account the extra production resulting from not having it's factories bombed the Germans can field an extra 10000 fully crewed and supplied heavy anti-aircraft guns (alot of 88s) against the Russian's. Work crews utilised repairing bomb damage can be used to improve the logistical situation on the eastern front.

          Plus the Russians would never achieve air superiority over the battlefield with the full weight of the luftwaffe facing it. Again, without lendlease aircraft, I would question the ability of the VVS to even gain parity.

          It's simple once you start looking at the numbers. It would be good if you could explain how you think Russia stands a better chance.
          To follow up on AdrianE's reply upthread, here's another torpedo in your already leaky boat of a hypothesis.
          In the historical operation, the German Army had everything going for it, yet they failed almost immediately. They were (without a doubt) the best trained and most experienced force that ever went into battle when they crossed the frontier on 22 June, yet as soon as the end of July they were already in serious trouble, especially on the Moscow axis.
          Don't believe me? Take a look at the mounting personnel losses in both the motorized and standard infantry regiments. The Soviets launched massive counterattacks (at GREAT cost) all along the front, but particularly on the Moscow axis. These battles were long misunderstood in western literature but if you get ahold of "Barbarossa Derailed" by D.M. Glantz, you are in for a rather eyewatering descriptive of what happened here. The cream of the Heer's irreplaceable experienced combat manpower was literally gutted. Sure, they took a horribly lopsided proportion of the Soviet attackers with them, but the Heer never recovered from this.

          And there was already yet another echelon of Soviet rifle divisions forming in the Moscow area, even as the offensives I speak of were starting to be launched.

          No "General Mud", no "General Winter"; no "Siberian" divisions either.
          No Lend Lease; the Germans have air superiority, there is absolute chaos in Soviet industry, the German factories are not being bombed...need I go on?

          Just millions of really off Soviets, and millions more behind them. They had a lot of bloody lessons to learn along the way, but they never stopped counterattacking... and we all know the result.

          In my opinion, if you take away the experience and resources gained by the German Army during the conquest of the West, and leave the undefeated French Army sitting along the Rhine, things could have only gone far, far worse for Hitler than they did in the historical situation.

          There you go...

          And to answer the actual thread topic?
          Well, now that I think about it? This whole series of early Soviet operations I just mentioned here are kind of:

          -Overlooked? Check
          -Undervalued? Yep
          -Underestimated? No doubt
          48 trips 'round the sun on this sh*tball we call home...and still learning...
          __________________________________________________ __________________

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Moulin View Post
            yes ..'flawed'
            there have always been wars/conflicts...and always will be
            humans rape/murder/kill/rob/etc
            and they always will
            ..going to a base point, you have to teach kids not to be selfish--not to be mean
            ...we should be very leery of trying to intervene in conflicts...and there are many of them, yes?
            ...what do you want to do? waste billions trying to make humans inhuman?--impossible
            so much $ wasted....in fact so much money spent and it created more
            problems--Bay of Pigs, Iran-Mossadegh, Vietnam, Iran -Contra, Alliance for Progress started by JFK--waste waste waste---etc
            T'was ever thus.
            But we can only respond to the world as we find it,rather than beating ourselves over the head, complaining that human nature en masse is not better than it is.
            For example, how do you respond when a ruthless dictatorship takes power over an advanced, sophisticated nation and implements a ruthless policy of expansion and conquest: including mass murder.
            After doing all you can to reason with this dictatorship trying to see their point-of -view ,to the extent of appeasement, what's left ?
            "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
            Samuel Johnson.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by iron View Post
              To follow up on AdrianE's reply upthread, here's another torpedo in your already leaky boat of a hypothesis.
              In the historical operation, the German Army had everything going for it, yet they failed almost immediately. They were (without a doubt) the best trained and most experienced force that ever went into battle when they crossed the frontier on 22 June, yet as soon as the end of July they were already in serious trouble, especially on the Moscow axis.
              Don't believe me? Take a look at the mounting personnel losses in both the motorized and standard infantry regiments. The Soviets launched massive counterattacks (at GREAT cost) all along the front, but particularly on the Moscow axis. These battles were long misunderstood in western literature but if you get ahold of "Barbarossa Derailed" by D.M. Glantz, you are in for a rather eyewatering descriptive of what happened here. The cream of the Heer's irreplaceable experienced combat manpower was literally gutted. Sure, they took a horribly lopsided proportion of the Soviet attackers with them, but the Heer never recovered from this.

              And there was already yet another echelon of Soviet rifle divisions forming in the Moscow area, even as the offensives I speak of were starting to be launched.

              No "General Mud", no "General Winter"; no "Siberian" divisions either.
              No Lend Lease; the Germans have air superiority, there is absolute chaos in Soviet industry, the German factories are not being bombed...need I go on?

              Just millions of really off Soviets, and millions more behind them. They had a lot of bloody lessons to learn along the way, but they never stopped counterattacking... and we all know the result.

              In my opinion, if you take away the experience and resources gained by the German Army during the conquest of the West, and leave the undefeated French Army sitting along the Rhine, things could have only gone far, far worse for Hitler than they did in the historical situation.

              There you go...

              And to answer the actual thread topic?
              Well, now that I think about it? This whole series of early Soviet operations I just mentioned here are kind of:

              -Overlooked? Check
              -Undervalued? Yep
              -Underestimated? No doubt
              Also something to consider... The Soviet hasty build up of 1940-41 was precipitated by the fall of France. So in this consideration of 2nd and 3rd order effects of no French campaign, you have to consider that the Red Army is not nearly as large and there is no particular emphasis on rapid expansion. Most of the reserves that the Germans ran into on their way to Moscow after the border battles were forming before June 22, just food for thought.
              Also consider all of the Wehrmacht losses of men and material in France, the Low Countries and the Battle of Britain. The Germans lost 60,000 trucks during the French campaign.
              So, overall the Red Army is smaller and echeloned in less depth, no massive reserves are forming prior to the invasion and complete surprise is still very likely to be achieved.
              "Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics"
              -Omar Bradley
              "Not everyone who studies logistics is a professional logistician, and there is no way to understand when you don't know what you don't know."
              -Anonymous US Army logistician

              Comment


              • Originally posted by iron View Post
                In the historical operation, the German Army had everything going for it, yet they failed almost immediately


                You mean by October/November...

                . They were (without a doubt) the best trained and most experienced force that ever went into battle when they crossed the frontier on 22 June,
                Agree, absolutely..



                No "General Mud",
                Yes, there was...it had major effects on the motorized divisions..

                no "General Winter";
                No winter clothes were received until after the failure of Op Typhoon..The Germans, from 2nd week November until the Soviet counteroffensive in December lost more men to frostbite and sickness then combat.

                no "Siberian" divisions either.
                Agree

                No Lend Lease;
                Correct, not a major factor during this period.

                the Germans have air superiority
                ,

                To an extent..in some areas no..


                there is absolute chaos in Soviet industry,
                Never was...even before they dismantled and moved everything east..Production was slowed yes, but back up and running better then ever far behind the MFL in early 42.


                the German factories are not being bombed...need I go on?
                Agree

                Just millions of really off Soviets, and millions more behind them. They had a lot of bloody lessons to learn along the way, but they never stopped counterattacking... and we all know the result.
                Agree



                There you go...
                And to answer the actual thread topic?
                Well, now that I think about it? This whole series of early Soviet operations I just mentioned here are kind of:

                -Overlooked? Check
                -Undervalued? Yep
                -Underestimated? No doubt
                No doubt about it Plus 1 !

                Regards,Kurt
                Last edited by Kurt Knispel; 04 Feb 17, 16:07.
                Theo mir ist die munition ausgegangen ich werde diesen ramman auf wiedersehen uns in walhalla

                Comment


                • Some other candidates

                  Originally posted by lodestar View Post
                  What is the most overlooked, undervalued, underestimated aspect of WWII?

                  I’m developing this as a companion and contrast piece to my earlier thread-starter:
                  What are WWII’s most over-used and overwrought clichés?
                  It behoves me to do so …....ergo it is done.
                  It would amuse me to do so ……ergo it is done
                  As it has been said by lodestar. Let it be as lodestar has said.

                  Everyone okay with that?
                  Thought so.

                  If push came to shove there’s not a man or woman on this Forum or any other who would even contemplate defying my will.
                  The path to enlightenment is always ‘the way of lodestar.
                  Blah, blah blah …God I’ve become a self-parodying, repetitive bore.
                  Sorry about that. It happens to best of us.
                  Guess that’s why happened to me.

                  But enough of prologue.

                  Get the idea?

                  Anyway, I’m sure posters will have their own suggestions and even extra categories (pigeon-hole) they may want to share.
                  However please, nothing which you think can’t be pigeon-holed. I detest pretensions of individuality.

                  Please keep in mind I’m looking for the: unsung, the undervalued, the under-recognised and the overlooked etc - no picking something completely mainstream and trying to pretend it has been much underestimated. (I came close with the V2 choice but hey, it’s my thread so I get some leeway).

                  Looking forward to your input.

                  Regards lodestar
                  I thought the above parts of my OP were so brilliantly funny and clever I'd quote them again just because it pleases me to do so.

                  God I love myself AND I love being me (there is a difference)!

                  Seriously, I really can't recall when I gave another living entity from human being to microbe a second thought.

                  But to get back on topic (MY TOPIC! MINE! MINE! MINE!!!)

                  A some other candidates are:

                  . Italian midget submarine warfare. A world leader and in way ahead of it's time. If the rest of Italy's war effort had been as on the ball as this we'd all be eating herrings and smoked cod (or whatever it is Italians eat)!

                  . German special forces and their operations: Airborne elites (Eban Emal), Brandenburger Commandos (many operations, raids and special ops - would make a great movie or mini-series).

                  .The Channel Dash: The escape Prinz Eugen, Gneisenau and Scharnhorst from Brest to German ports right through the English Channel. Okay, strategically inconsequential but an amazingly daring feat of coordination.

                  Regards
                  lodestar

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
                    T'was ever thus.
                    But we can only respond to the world as we find it,rather than beating ourselves over the head, complaining that human nature en masse is not better than it is.
                    For example, how do you respond when a ruthless dictatorship takes power over an advanced, sophisticated nation and implements a ruthless policy of expansion and conquest: including mass murder.
                    After doing all you can to reason with this dictatorship trying to see their point-of -view ,to the extent of appeasement, what's left ?
                    ....if they are capable of hurting the US, I'd be concerned--such as Saddam taking over oil fields, thus causing a huge economic impact on the US---but you have to know if there will be an impact
                    ........I can't think of too many post WW2 conflicts where the ''aggressor'' had the ability to do what hitler did...
                    ..........if the ''aggressor'' is just ''attacking'' a neighboring country--I would not be concerned at all---and then it's sometimes hard to know who the real aggressor is...some of these conflicts are very complicated
                    ....as far as mass murder--let the region's countries take care of it...
                    Rwanda and Cambodia were ''fixed''... [ besides, in Rwanda there wasn't enough time for the US to stop most of the killings ]
                    ....in regards to the Arab - Israeli conflict---you had many, large nations wanting to destroy a tiny nation--I'd stick up for a nation like that..--such as Kuwait also.
                    ...South Korea is either or--no impacct on the US either way...
                    ......you have the Russians helping the North....but in the end, it all ''works'' out....that's life ...that's the world
                    in my opinion, the US should not and cannot get involved in so many conflicts, time after time ....
                    ....draw a line...if it's crossed, then go in all guns pounding....
                    also, hitler, in the very least, had his hands full...Germany bit off more than it could chew...most countries cannot expand and conquer too much without it coming back to bite them .... ie the Iran-Iraq war, Italy vs Greece, ....in Rwanda and Cambodia, the hated regimes were ousted in just a few years
                    ...the US cannot embark on a ''crusade' every time there is a ''problem' in the world...or when idiots [ CIA ] think there are imaginary threats
                    Last edited by Moulin; 04 Feb 17, 10:24.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Moulin View Post
                      ....if they are capable of hurting the US, I'd be concerned--such as Saddam taking over oil fields, thus causing a huge economic impact on the US---but you have to know if there will be an impact
                      ........I can't think of too many post WW2 conflicts where the ''aggressor'' had the ability to do what hitler did...
                      ..........if the ''aggressor'' is just ''attacking'' a neighboring country--I would not be concerned at all---and then it's sometimes hard to know who the real aggressor is...some of these conflicts are very complicated
                      ....as far as mass murder--let the region's countries take care of it...
                      Rwanda and Cambodia were ''fixed''... [ besides, in Rwanda there wasn't enough time for the US to stop most of the killings ]
                      ....in regards to the Arab - Israeli conflict---you had many, large nations wanting to destroy a tiny nation--I'd stick up for a nation like that..--such as Kuwait also.
                      ...South Korea is either or--no impacct on the US either way...
                      ......you have the Russians helping the North....but in the end, it all ''works'' out....that's life ...that's the world
                      in my opinion, the US should not and cannot get involved in so many conflicts, time after time ....
                      ....draw a line...if it's crossed, then go in all guns pounding....
                      also, hitler, in the very least, had his hands full...Germany bit off more than it could chew...most countries cannot expand and conquer too much without it coming back to bite them .... ie the Iran-Iraq war, Italy vs Greece, ....in Rwanda and Cambodia, the hated regimes were ousted in just a few years
                      ...the US cannot embark on a ''crusade' every time there is a ''problem' in the world...or when idiots [ CIA ] think there are imaginary threats
                      While these are all fascinating topics, discussion on them belongs in the relevant sections of the forum, not in a thread in the World War Two section .Let's get back on topic please.
                      Thank you ACG Staff

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by CarpeDiem View Post
                        While these are all fascinating topics, discussion on them belongs in the relevant sections of the forum, not in a thread in the World War Two section .Let's get back on topic please.
                        Thank you ACG Staff
                        Roger that

                        Comment


                        • On topic

                          Originally posted by CarpeDiem View Post
                          While these are all fascinating topics, discussion on them belongs in the relevant sections of the forum, not in a thread in the World War Two section .Let's get back on topic please.
                          Thank you ACG Staff
                          Quite so.

                          As I said in Post#113:

                          "some other candidates are:

                          . Italian midget submarine warfare. A world leader and in way ahead of it's time. If the rest of Italy's war effort had been as on the ball as this we'd all be eating herrings and smoked cod (or whatever it is Italians eat)!

                          . German special forces and their operations: Airborne elites (Eban Emal), Brandenburger Commandos (many operations, raids and special ops - would make a great movie or mini-series).

                          .The Channel Dash: The escape Prinz Eugen, Gneisenau and Scharnhorst from Brest to German ports right through the English Channel. Okay, strategically inconsequential but an amazingly daring feat of coordination."


                          and in Post #60:

                          "The Soviets had female COMBAT pilots
                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Not to take anything away from the great courage and daring of Western female pilots who served so bravely ...but...the Soviets had female COMBAT pilots.

                          The really are unsung. At least in the West.

                          Imagine if there had been a Briton or an American female combat pilot? Just one.
                          WE WOULD NEVER HEAR THE END OF IT!
                          Books, movies (Paltrow?, Streep?, Winslet?, Blanchett?, Foster?, Portman?, Knightley?), TV mini-series, documentaries, the works.

                          But then sometimes... when its not one of our guys or gals its kinda not the same is it?Or am I being too unfair?

                          Relax Tuck, there is nothing wrong with being robustly and patriotically British."


                          Regards
                          lodestar

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by AdrianE View Post
                            Just where would the Germans get the required prime movers and the fuel for moving all those guns and crews?

                            You are arguing the "no war with the West" what if without actually considering the real consequences.
                            1) Germany has to guard its Western border against the French who have a long history of working with Russia to contain Germany. France has over 2000 tanks and a modernizing airforce. We know the French army was flawed by doctrine but the Germans didn't. DAK plus Second army are required on this border.
                            2) Germany does not have the loot it stole from the West. No extra raw materials, especially fuel. No extra trucks. The Wehrmacht used tens of thousands of French and other western trucks to motorize itself
                            3) The Germans used captured french tanks to outfit some battalions used in Russia. Furthermore they used them to train up three new panzer regiments.
                            4) The Italians are out and the Romanians and their oil are probably out too.
                            5) The French campaign taught the Germans that their tanks were under gunned.

                            You are arguing that a smaller, weaker, less mobile wehrmacht with much less fuel would somehow defeat the Red Army when the historical army couldn't.
                            I've always viewed the hypothetical Germany Vs USSR scenario as starting at the commencement of Barbarossa. So Germany has France, Part of Poland, Norway etc.

                            So on the 22nd of June 1941 Germany and USSR go to war. The the western allies go neutral and cease dealing with the two warring sides because ALIENS.

                            It's a ridiculous scenario at best but a necessary one so as to isolate Germany and the USSR for the purpose of discussion.

                            The question is could Germany, as it stood on the 22nd of June 1941, defeat USSR as it stood on the same date in a war without any outside intervention or assistance? The answer is yes.

                            As soon as you start to add in all the variables you chaps are stating the answer becomes a big NO.

                            Comment


                            • Come now....thetruth is often uncomfortable

                              Originally posted by lodestar View Post
                              Quite so.

                              As I said in Post#60:

                              "The Soviets had female COMBAT pilots
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Not to take anything away from the great courage and daring of Western female pilots who served so bravely ...but...the Soviets had female COMBAT pilots.

                              The really are unsung. At least in the West.

                              Imagine if there had been a Briton or an American female combat pilot? Just one.
                              WE WOULD NEVER HEAR THE END OF IT!
                              Books, movies (Paltrow?, Streep?, Winslet?, Blanchett?, Foster?, Portman?, Knightley?), TV mini-series, documentaries, the works.

                              But then sometimes... when its not one of our guys or gals its kinda not the same is it?Or am I being too unfair?

                              Relax Tuck, there is nothing wrong with being robustly and patriotically British."
                              Come now!
                              This won't do this won't do at all!

                              I 'm hoping to eventually make this part of a revived tutorial thematic (one of my favourite words) I'm going to explore the degree to which a person or study group can operate out of their 'comfort zone', indulge in a bit of role reversal / role playing (a duopoly I just invented! - brilliant!).

                              The comfort zone in question?
                              As I said: "when its not one of our guys or gals its kinda not the same is it?"

                              I want those precious, self-important, entitled little generation Xer's, Baby Boomers, Millennials and Ostrogoths to be quaking and cryin'.
                              "Please Mr lodestar we don't like where this class is going, we're all frightened, We don't want to hear about female combat pilots with names like Ivana, or Marina or Larisa.
                              We want to hear about female ferry/transport pilots called Penelope and Charlotte and Florence.
                              And the other day you said people who weren't on our side were just as brave as we were.
                              Please stop!"

                              God I loved those days!
                              Teaching people HOW to think, NOT what to think!
                              Like extracting teeth with a lot of them.....but when they'd see the light (that is to say when they saw things my way)..... worth every effort!

                              Regards
                              lodestar

                              Comment


                              • I think I know the sort of you want: a seemingly outrageous argument out of left field such as that which one of my lecturers came up with once:

                                "Neville Chamberlain was Britain's Bismarck ".

                                You academics are all alike !
                                "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                                Samuel Johnson.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X