Wikipedia goes on to state “However, the casualty statistics of the Eastern war tend to give some substance to many of the claims made by the former general as to the tactical superiority of the German army during the period 1939–1944, especially over its Soviet counterpart.”
I saw that and didn’t include it- I should have for completeness.
However I don’t think it is a particularly compelling argument about either Zhukov as a Commander or whether von Mellenthin was correct.
There is a broad brush statement about casualties in the “Eastern War”. The Soviets suffered great casualties- that is not in issue. However statistics are for the Eastern War not for the period when Zhukov was running the joint.
Further, von Mellenthin had his arse handed to him on a platter by the Soviets. Yet he still says their tactics are inferior.
He also claims not to have known of the Nazi atrocities.
Mellenthin does not say Russian tactics were inferior. He did imply that their tactics were unique, while admitting Russian tactics were “frequently effective” and that “many great and important successes were achieved by [the Russian] method.”
The point I am trying to make is that, generally speaking, Soviet officers were less concerned about the lives of their men (and thus were more willing to accept large casualties) than were western officers.
?
Quote: many of the claims made by the former general as to the tactical superiority of the German army during the period 1939–1944, especially over its Soviet counterpart.
That seems awfully like saying Soviet tactics were inferior (That is quoted from Wiki).
The Soviets were the first to officially identify the operational level of combat, the intermediate level between the tactical and the strategic. They also rejected the German obsession with battles of annihilation in favor of deep battle. Rather than having to surround and destroy your enemy (which is tough to do in an age of mobile warfare), they figured out that if they pushed far enough towards the enemy’s strategic level (their rail heads, supply depots, reserves), they could make his front line positions untenable, which would require him to either pull back or be destroyed. These were complicated attacks that involved combined arms cooperation. The only way these attacks work is if you can punch a hole through the enemy’s front line that you can pour armor and mechanized infantry into, so the initial front-line assault would involve massive amounts of men and artillery. I can see how this aspect might be seen as a “human wave attack,” especially if you’re one of the Germans on the front line having to try and fight off such a huge assault, but there’s nothing mindless about it. It’s a necessary cost to breach the front line.
Excuse me, but what was there LEFT of Stalingrad, after the Luftwaffe bombed it?
The pictures I see all show a city in ruins-what value was it , once everything was wrecked?
There was really nothing left of Stalingrad. The city had to be completely rebuilt after the war.
Yes. And they somehow won the war.:rolleyes:
If they had been so unconcerned they would have been unable to fucntion as an army.
For officers who were unconcerned, look at the French army in 1916-1917. It led to mutiny.
And the highly humane and concerned western officers were satisfied to suffer major casualties at Salerno, Caen, Normandy, Metz, Northern France, Arnham, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, all battles with obscene casualty figures.:dubious:
I am sure there have been. But in general, I would think a belief in the occult and racism, other things being equal, make for a worse general. A racist is more likely to overestimate the ability of his own troops and underestimate the ability of his opponent (for example see the prevalent attitude amongst British and American commanders early in the Pacific war about the fighting capability of the Japanese people). A believer in the occult is more likely to be looking for the miracle solution, and more likely to believe success is predestined. He’d also be more likely to allow a pack of cards or the entrails of a rabbit to determine the next offensive, rather than crazy things like strategy and opposing troop alignments.
The Luftwaffe wasn’t very good at attacking cities. Soviet production continued in Stalingrad throughout the German offensive - there are stories of T-34’s rolling off the production line, out of the doors (without camo paint or gun sights) and being crewed immediately for combat.
Stalingrad was in ruins, but it wasn’t all from the air, and even amongst those ruins there was a lot of military production going on.
I did some searching on Wiki and the battles you list have casualty rates nowhere near some of the Eastern Front battles (except for the Japanese casualties, which I’m not sure can compare). Some figures:
Iwo Jima :
Americans 6%K/17%W
D-Day:
Americans 3%K/3%W
Germans: ~2% total (Wiki is a bit unclear)
Arnhem (part of Market Garden)
Allies: 1.6%K, 60% captured
Germans: 1%W/1%K
Now the Eastern Front battles. Given the size and length of the battles it’s not fair to make a direct comparison (e.g. casualties within an order of magnitude could be considered similar) but they are eye-popping:
Battle of Moscow:
German: between 28%-40% total
Soviet: low estimate around 50%, high near 90% (caveat here is that casualties include captured Soviets–it isn’t clear how many).
Kursk:
German: ~40% total (including captured?)
Soviet: ~80% total
(I got these conclusions by dividing casualties listed in Wiki by total strength.)
I’m not sure what them mean except that the Eastern Front was brutal.
I have to ask because here I’ll get the SD. According to David Irving (I know), Hitler and not Henrici came up with the idea of retreating to a second line of defense before the start of the battle of Berlin.
Everyone else claim it was Heinrici trademark tactic.
That is an infamy. Stalin planned to hold an election but was talked out of it by Beria who showed him some polls that proved that Stalin would have won with a 98,768% of the votes.
The Soviet Union was a very democratic country and all political matters were put up for a vote.
Of course, only one guy got to vote.
Officers can be unconcerned and still control an Army and even win battles and wars. You only need to look at British Generals such as Hunter-Weston and Haking. Of Haking, Wiki says :
Haking acquired a reputation as a “butcher” while the fighting was still taking place… Although other First World War generals have also gained this label, this has principally occurred after the war ended…
Further ( after Fromelles where he lost 80% of his forces killed, wounded or captured) he said: “I think that the attack, though it failed, has done both divisions a great deal of good…”
To make it worse he lived to a disgusting old age. After several promotions and honours.
Another example is Mustafa Kemal Ataturk with his famous order: Soldiers, I am not ordering you to fight. I am ordering you to die. In the time, it takes us to die, other forces and commanders can come and take our place to defend this country."
End of hijack.
The post you quoted says less concerned, not unconcerned. Also, I’m pretty sure the USSR and the West were allies, hence, did they not both somehow win the war?:rolleyes:
There’s also the fact the because of his racist attitudes, there were several million previously able-bodied “Untermenschen” in Germany (and many who might have otherwise been receptive to a German alliance in the occupied territories) who were unable to contribute to the war effort.
The german troops must have been pretty down after this disaster-they learned that (in the eyes of their “Fuhrer”) they were pretty much expendable-and being captured meant certain death.
Can’t have been much of an incentive to a young man joining the wehrmacht!
Another question: did the Russians treat italian and rumanian POWS less harshly than the germans? As far as I know, the ialian generals on the eastern fron were horrified at german atrocities (against civilians)-and many of them complained to Mussolini about it. One general (forget his name) even threatened to resign, rather than follow german orders (to murder civilians).
Not joining the Wehrmacht (or other services) was not exactly much of an option for young German men at the time. The hope was to serve in the West. I don’t have the figures handy, but I would imagine that gave a person the highest life expectancy. I doubt the German’s were adding much manpower to their surface navy after this stage, and submariners had the highest death rate of any German service. I doubt the Luftwaffe was particularly “safe” especially for pilots by the later stages of the war.
The morale effects were pretty large, but, until D-Day, there wasn’t really much that could change. Deserting/surrendering to the Soviets wasn’t particularly palatable, and that was the only major area of combat for German troops - North Africa and Italy didn’t provide much opportunity, though were preferred postings for obvious reasons. Soldiers didn’t decide where they were sent, and even when the Wehrmacht was on the defensive on the East, the choice for the soldier was to fight hard to try to stay alive, or be killed. At that point faith in the Fuhrer isn’t too important.
As to treatment of prisoners, the worst off were the Hiwis and other locally recruited troops. German soldiers (don’t know if there was much of a difference in how Waffen SS and Wehrmacht troops were treated - there certainly was in the West on an informal level) were treated better when captured by the Soviets than Soviets were when captured by the Germans (though again, that is such a low bar it isn’t anythign to be proud of). I haven’t heard anything suggesting that Italians or Romanians were treated better.
Didn’t have much of a choice.
No, why would they?
It would have made great tactical sense to do so, if only to make the wholesale surrender of entire units more likely.