General World War 2 Discussion Thread

It's right, that Germany is still occupied and not souvereign?

Btw: Everybody says the allies had an easy ride through France and Germany while the glory Red Army crushed one Panzerdivision each day to arrive in Berlin...

You know that the US/British Forces in Normandy forced the biggest "blob" of Elite-Panzerdivisions, "Flak-Feldverbänden (8,8s)" and mechanized Division the Reich could mobilise. While on the eastern Front mainly Infantry-Divisions with a pair of PaK's ....

Many historicans have the opinion that the eastern front 1944 was "balanced", Wehrmacht had better equipment/tactics while the Red Army meanwhile got great Generals too, better industry and fought on their own ground.

Of course through Partisan Attacks throughout europe, constant bombing of the german industry so so on the tide turned ...

Well Raging Reich, what are the names of these historians who chose 1944 as the year of "balance"?

A layman like me can't help but look at the map of Jan 1944/Jan 1945 and think 1944 was the year Red Army recovered all the conquered territories and made inroads to Central Europe.

The fronts were everything bit not balanced in 1944... None of them! The German industry was suffering from the bombing raids and the supplies were attacked constantly by the RAF and the American Air Force because the had the air superiority! Panzerdivisions could not operate because of the Bombers. Same on the eastern front were the russians outnumbered the germans and used their tacrics against them!

Well Raging Reich, what are the names of these historians who chose 1944 as the year of "balance"?

A layman like me can't help but look at the map of Jan 1944/Jan 1945 and think 1944 was the year Red Army recovered all the conquered territories and made inroads to Central Europe.

Srry, bro I mean on a Russian-German only War ..... 1944 would've been a year on the eastern front like 1915/1916 at the western front most probalbly.

Two strong armys without a major advantage, I mean the western allies get underrated in their performance. They had an absolute huge impact on the eastern front, with lend-lease and constant bombing of the german industry ......

I remember a high Soviet Officer laughing about the slow british advance through france. The british faced the biggest concentration of 8,8mm Guns in History while the soviets mainly had to fight against decimated Infantry Divisions 1944. Simply the last well equiped and trained forces of german were situated at the Normandy.


it could have been an endless trench warfare on the estern front 1944 with an unclear year 1945, without western help. Year by year the soviets would become stronger due to higher birth rate, and bigger resources ....

I'm from Switzerland my mum is french my dad is german so and i only chose this name bec of it's coolness "Rage_of_the_Union", or "Rage_of_the_States" are options too, but don't sound so hard ^^

Greetings

Srry, bro I mean on a Russian-German only War ..... 1944 would've been a year on the eastern front like 1915/1916 at the western front most probalbly.

Two strong armys without a major advantage, I mean the western allies get underrated in their performance. They had an absolute huge impact on the eastern front, with lend-lease and constant bombing of the german industry ......

I remember a high Soviet Officer laughing about the slow british advance through france. The british faced the biggest concentration of 8,8mm Guns in History while the soviets mainly had to fight against decimated Infantry Divisions 1944. Simply the last well equiped and trained forces of german were situated at the Normandy.


it could have been an endless trench warfare on the estern front 1944 with an unclear year 1945, without western help. Year by year the soviets would become stronger due to higher birth rate, and bigger resources ....

I'm from Switzerland my mum is french my dad is german so and i only chose this name bec of it's coolness "Rage_of_the_Union", or "Rage_of_the_States" are options too, but don't sound so hard ^^

Greetings

Greetings to you as well.

The What-if thought experiments are indeed fascinating, I had always wondered how the war would have gone if Stalin didn't purge the progressive officers in the Red Army and let the professional soldiers carry out equipment and doctrinal modernization as the Germans had done pre-war. Would 1941 have gone the other way around? I guess we will never know.

But the idea that Germans somehow threw in more and better units to the west rather than the east was indeed a new one to me. I had always thought that of the two fronts, the Eastern one was the site of "real" carnage, where the Germans lost the majority of their infantry, armor and those 88mm guns (why are they singled out again?) against relentless Red Army offensive operations that often spanned the whole front. All these held true, even in the months after the anglo-americans staged their famed D-Day landing at a time when the Germans already appeared destined for defeat from the east.

Have you ever read a soviet general staff study? It looks like you have some serious biases as far as sourcing goes and your first method is to attack the source, particularly if it is not German.

I have some of the Soviet General Staff studies (about Kursk, Lvov, etc.) for reference and they are useful for information on Soviet side of things, as they are focused on specific battles. I consider their information on the German side to be not reliable.

I have to admit that I am incredulous of some of your statements as I am not convinced you have read the things that you attack. This extends to our earlier clash on the forum. The WW2 archive you cited is 12,000 pages? I doubt that you've read more than portions of it. It is also far too short to be a detailed operational history of any particular battle as it covers multiple types of history.

The most detailed operational account of a single battle I have ever seen is the Stalingrad trilogy (glantz) which is 2,300 pages ish. It covers troop movements day by day. I will probably get started on that next year. I've already bought V1-V4, and the V5 is a statistics and reports book that will be released soon.

Therefore, while the focus and perspective is indeed explicitly a German one, it of course does integrate most of the recent foreign scholarship, to include that of Soviet/Russian provenience. Unfortunately the English volumes are indeed filthy expensive and I can't vouch for the quality of the translation, I would suggest interlibrary loan from the next university library. And while there have been a host of contributions, not at all of course of homogenously high quality, I think it is no exaggeration to say that this represents the state of research in most fields, and you won't get around it if you are looking for an advanced understanding of the war.

The Soviet General Staff studies really do not make for an apt comparison in ambition, or scope, or historiographical quality - at all. Frankly they aren't really a work of serious scholarship, just look at the source apparatus or lack thereof. Still of course interesting, if only because they play so prominent a role in some of Glantzes' work.

Why, yes of course I've read Soviet general staff studies. Even by internet standards otherwise that would be a tad too much grandstanding. Their methodological flaw is as common as it is obvious, as you have yourself noted, they never even took the time to consult the corresponding German sources who even at the height of the cold war were openly accessible at the BA/NARA. This is historiography 101 really, and omitting to do so will not fly even in an introductory seminar. In this specific case, the tactical and operational conclusions drawn by the authors are at times dangerously delusional. The same applies to the official Soviet history of the "Great Patriotic War", and even to Krivosheev who outright fantasised on matters where solid archival data was available, ie. German strength/loss figures to late 1944. Earlier "Western" scholarship,(ie. Ziemke, Seaton etc.) was flawed insofar as for the most part Soviet sources were simply not accessible to it (Erickson being the notable exception, if only to a degee) but the same does not hold true for the Soviet authors; at least in theory. In fact, to this day it is still quite difficult to access military "sensitive" data in Russia, even for Russian authors, and it is sometimes even more difficult to actually find what you are looking for. Western authors tend not to be even allowed inside Russian archives in person. Glantz for example works with intermediaries, as does Frieser.
Anyways, my recommendation still stands.

"Rage of the Reich", no offence, but virtually all your statements above appear very uninformed. (Und der Name klingt echt ein bissel albern). In 1944, the war was already decided militarily, and there was no such thing as an equilibrium. On the Eastern front, the RKKA conducted operation Bagration which was quite possibly the worst defeat of German arms in history and effectively destroyed HG Mitte, whereas in France the Wehrmacht proved unable to contain the Western Allies after the latters initial hickup in Normandy. In fact, most people, myself included, would argue that the failure of Unternehmen Taifun in late 1941 (the push to Moscow) sealed the fate of Nazi Germany, quite simply because of the great disparity in manpower and material between Axis and Allies.
And why would Germany not be sovereign? If you wanna be really technical, one might argue that until the 2+4 treaty Germany was indeed not a sovereign nation, but that is 20 years past.

Which ones? Identify them??

You have some very strident views that are frankly unconvincing unless you get into some details, and identify specifics.

For instance, the soviet general staff studies on the build up of the summer 1943 bulge defenses is hardly useless. The Soviet General staff studies were meant to teach operations and tactics to their officers but like a lot of soviet sources, they tend to exaggerate numbers. But the Germans do this aggressively as well. Even the US Army official histories do this, which frequently identify the Germans as incompetents compared to American command. In the end, the numbers are not that important if one is interested in operations, and find it entertaining to read.

As far as your recommendation goes, it sounds like general history to me, and not about specifics of battles. There are only 2 volumes that are about the decisive time on the eastern front, and they are far too short to be detailed at all.

To me, it looks like you are just editorializing; there isn't meat to your claims.

My views on the 'general picture' of the war are pretty standard modern Anglo-saxon views (Ivy league/Oxford historians). I may be 'brainwashed' but I find these stances more convincing than say, those of neo nazis.

With the Germans of our history forum, they have expressed views that are on similar lines but definitively biased towards some sort of nationalism; a deeply ingrained feeling of consistent German military-qualitative supremacy even well into 1944.

This is reinforced by a lack of interest in the US, British/CW, and the Soviet (Russian) side of things.

. In 1944, the war was already decided militarily, and there was no such thing as an equilibrium. On the Eastern front, the RKKA conducted operation Bagration which was quite possibly the worst defeat of German arms in history and effectively destroyed HG Mitte, whereas in France the Wehrmacht proved unable to contain the Western Allies after the latters initial hickup in Normandy. In fact, most people, myself included, would argue that the failure of Unternehmen Taifun in late 1941 (the push to Moscow) sealed the fate of Nazi Germany, quite simply because of the great disparity in manpower and material between Axis and Allies.

Of course, I agree with these statements completely.

Hm. I am not sure whether I should dignify this in kind. If you find fault with my argumentation, I recommend that indeed you become more specific, and I find it fairly amusing that you would level that sort of accusation towards me. If you cannot see that the Soviet General Staff Studies have little lasting value as historiography (and possibly even less as tactical/operational instruction) then I am afraid I can't help you and am indeed wasting my time. I've read the ones on Lwow, Kursk, and Bagration, and the only thing they might be useful for besides their intrinsic documentary value might be to reference the OOBs and movements of Soviet formations. Analytically, structurally, they have little to no merit. The one on Lwow I have laying around here somewhere, if you want to discuss specifics, be my guest.

I've been pretty specific and sourced things I've actually read; you haven't.

You have instead offered spurious sources that not really related-. If these russian sources are so worthless, and then what russian sources would you recommend?

Basically, whether you realize this or not- it looks like you have been editorializing.

Also, you come across as posing as some type of expert, which is weird.

Well, game on. Are you a simpleton, or just out of your mind? Where did I state that "Russian" (btw, we are actually talking Soviet here, smallish difference, you know) sources are worthless? Put up or shut up - what bizarre nonsense. Do you realise that ie. the Soviet general staff studies are secondary sources with a specific audience in mind, serving a specific purpose, and that they must be understood in this context? As to sources I would recommend, that of course depends on whatever question you are interested in. If I wanted to know the bayonet strength of the umpteenth Guards Rifle Division on a given date, ideally I would want to see the strenght return, and to find out, I would have to visit an archive or consult secondary literature that has performed said research. Quite simple. Nota bene, source does not equal historiography.
Oh, and leave your Neo-nazi/superiority whatever strawman at the door or argue with your lonesome self. I lack the patience for this sort of dishonesty.

Cool down. No need to be aggressive. I do know published historians of our forum and they have referenced Soviet General staff studies in their books and papers. I was even recommended one from a Colonel of armored forces, a published expert on Red Army armored forces and command.

I have to admit though, that I think you are (probably unknowingly) editorialzing in your presentation and I have questioned you here about it. I don't find you convincing so far and you will have to endure that or leave.

And that is precisely the use of the Soviet general staff studies- troop movements, training regimes, and tactics. They should not be used to learn of German intentions.

Also for the German sources, they too were created for specific audiences in mind.

This series that you recommend have their counterparts among US/British historians. Ultimately, I believe people here are more interested in individual battles and the details of combat rather than broad overviews of the whole war.

Cool down. No need to be aggressive. I do know published historians of our forum and they have referenced Soviet General staff studies in their books and papers. I was even recommended one from a Colonel of armored forces, a published expert on Red Army armored forces and command.

I have to admit though, that I think you are (probably unknowingly) editorialzing in your presentation and I have questioned you here about it. I don't find you convincing so far and you will have to endure that or leave.

And that is precisely the use of the Soviet general staff studies- troop movements, training regimes, and tactics. They should not be used to learn of German intentions.

Also for the German sources, they too were created for specific audiences in mind.

This series that you recommend have their counterparts among US/British historians. Ultimately, I believe people here are more interested in individual battles and the details of combat rather than broad overviews of the whole war.

In the sweet words of the virgin Mary, you're bullshitting, erecting strawmen, dodging the questions, constantly shifting the goalpoasts, and using otherwise every cheapo rabulistics in the books - including the time-honored nazi innuendo. At least this time I caught your post before the inevitable deluge of ninjaedits. Since you bring up historians, well I used to be one. Not a fancy one I admit, I changed fields while writing my dissertation, but still. I am sure you aren't, otherwise, woe to my old profession. If you really want to discuss specifics, bring up specifics, we'll argue. Thats my peace offer of sort, otherwise I will waste my time elsewhere.

So a student? You come across as reading the wrong messages from my posts and are purposely hostile without provocation.

I've not attacked you a single time in this conversation outside of implying that you might be like those nationalist guys of our forum who have particular focus. You haven't answered simple direct questions and you provided no Russian sources.

I am not wet behind the ears when interacting with military historians.

You certainly appear to be wet behind the ears when it comes to treatment of sources, and understanding their respective import. Have you spend a single day in an archive, wrote a single academic paper? A masters thesis, whatever? And while of course I once was a student, I also used to get paid to spread my infinite wisdom. Anyways, enough of this. The offer stands, if you want specifics, I'll provide, but for me to do this you need to specify what you actually want to know. Hah, those puns.

Your postings come across as being very arrogant, and elitist without showing credentials or depth of knowledge. You should be more aware of this. I do not recognize your expertise if you do not show any evidence of it and I will not defer to you and give you the credibility you feel you deserve. This is the internet, after all. You prove yourself by posting good content, not by personal attacks and declarations of intellectual supremacy.

So if you such an expert, why not first tell us some of the useful russian sources? I've asked you this several times.

And I've told you many times. The usefulness of any given source can be gauged only in relation to what you want to know. To give an example: If I want to know the Soviet casualties incurred ie. during Operation Uranus, I would attempt to visit a Soviet archive and find the corresponding strength returns, casualty reports, etc.. Failing to do so I would consult the pertinent secondary literature, ie. Krivosheev. I would not attempt to base them on German estimates failing any other alternative. The latter would serve admirably to illustrate the German perception of casualties inflicted on their antagonists though, if I was interested in that particular question, their value would be paramount. Vice-versa, the same applies.
In our aforementioned example, if I wanted to know what lessons the Soviets derived from their operations and how they planned on passing them on to their aspiring general staff personnel, the General Staff Series would of course be invaluable. As a work of historiography though, in the sense of plausible reconstruction of what happenend and why (you know, Ranke, "was eigentlich geschah"), they have very little if any lasting value due to their fundamental flaws that I have had to expound on ad nauseam.
You are not answering my questions by the way. Could you be bothered to or is that below you?

That's better but once again you have not identified any Russian primary or secondary sources that could be useful. Russian sources to me are like Kursk expert Zamulin's 'Demolishing the Myth'.

Doing bottoms up historical research is not the purpose of this thread and anybody here, nor is caring about what General history is approved by the academic elite of some nation.

I do not care about doing research; that is not my business. My business here is learning about the truth of the war rapidly, and I approach this by reading a combination of secondary and primary sources.


I am not a historian, I am a businessman. But I have read a great deal about the war, and more than the professionally trained, who do not usually focus in the same area, due to 10 years of hobby interest. We have an assistant professor on our forum that is clearly formally trained but knows diddly squat about WW2.

I do not reject material because it is 'not academic' enough, and not written by academics for other academics and thus 100% worthless, nor do I consider this approach to be valid.

Is this really that complicated? Again, it depends on what you want to know. Any Soviet (German, Slovakian, Martian) source can be either pertinent or not and this is the measure of its usefulness.
Zamulin is an author, and serves as a "source" only if you reference him with respect to any particular question. Zamulin is a borderline bullshit merchant by the way, fabricating (actual) sources and generally "demolishing myths" that had been demolished more than 20 years earlier... http://www.sehepunkte.de/2012/01/19013.html

Once again, you seem to be not getting the purpose of the thread. Nobody cares about going to the archives.

Instead of attacking books that you've never read, identify Russian books that are worth reading.