[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/his/ - History & Humanities



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 62813746_p0_master1200.jpg (1.04 MB, 1200x849)
1.04 MB
1.04 MB JPG
>Went through history class only learning about how glorious D-Day was and how important the U.S. was in contributing to the defeat of Germany
Can someone tell me about what the Soviets did to contribute besides "winter saved them in Stalingrad"?
>>
>>4134765
They fought and defeated the bulk of the Heer. http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nations/134-campaigns-a-operations/campaigns-a-operations/2085-number-of-german-divisions-by-front-in-world-war-ii
>>
>>4134765
Probably 75% of German losses of men and material were in Russia.
>>
>>4134765
They literally won the war. Anyone who says Germany couldn't be defeated without the beach landings is absolutely fucking retarded.
>>
>>4134810
That's not quite true. What everyone quotes is ultimately derived from Overman's tally of Wehrmacht losses, which showed about 79% of 1939-1944 killed in actions came from the Eastern Front. Overall losses were not the same as killed in action, and the breakdown of governmental functions and general organizations in the Nazi state in the last months of the war make tallying casualties a little difficult for 1945.

Furthermore, the forces in the Eastern Front were disproportionately less mechanized and less supported by air than the forces facing the Western Allies. There were also far more captured compared to killed fighting the Western Allies as opposed to the Soviets.

That's not to say that the Soviets didn't destroy the bulk of the Heer, but it's to less of a degree than most pseuds quote. The Luftwaffe was primarily destroyed by the Americans and British.
>>
>>4134821
Nah, D-Day probably shortened the war by a month. Just the threat of the invasion tied up as many troops as fighting the invasion. Germany had shortages across the board (men, raw materials, fuel, supplies of all kinds, etc) and Germany's eastern front had priority in men & material over western from June 16, 1944. At that time priority shifted to the western, and this lasted until June 26, 1944 when it shifted back to the Eastern where it remained until the end of the war.
>>
>>4134843
Also look at number of Divisions assigned to each front. Eastern front far outnumbered the Western throughout the war. I know it is difficult to determine which divisions were at full strength and which were really just regiments or less. Still useful to consider.
>>
Operation Bagration
>>
>>4134882
True, but post 1943, you most definitely do not have 80% of the Heer's commitment to the eastern front. By September of 1943 (right after Kursk) The Eastern Front proper has 188 divisions, and another 7 German divisions in Finland. (There are also a bunch of Axis satellite troops hanging around, but I don't have numbers on them). Meanwhile, there are 51 divisions in France, 19 in Yugoslavia and Greece, 16 in Italy, and 13 in Norway. Add it all up and you get 195 arrayed against the Soviets to 99 arrayed against the Western Allies, or about 2/3-1/3 split.
>>
>>4134913
One of the Divisions the Germans transferred to France in 1944 was less then 500 men. All the others had been bled off to Russia, secretly, designated as belonging to other units. looking at Divisions is useful, as I said earlier, but you have to be careful. the Germans went to great lengths to hide their weaknesses.

Another issue is the quality of troops. The Germans used a system similar to the U.S. rating the physical and mental condition of troops using letters and numbers. U.S. troops on D-Day captured German troops in Infantry units with wooden legs, one arm, etc. They captured Mongolians they thought were Japs who spoke only rudimentary German. One battalion was made up almost entirely of deaf guys. High rated guys went to Russia, and low rated went to France.
>>
>>4134964
>One of the Divisions the Germans transferred to France in 1944 was less then 500 men
[citation needed] Also, are you implying that most of the divisions on the Eastern Front weren't understrength?

>
Another issue is the quality of troops. The Germans used a system similar to the U.S. rating the physical and mental condition of troops using letters and numbers. U.S. troops on D-Day captured German troops in Infantry units with wooden legs, one arm, etc. They captured Mongolians they thought were Japs who spoke only rudimentary German. One battalion was made up almost entirely of deaf guys.

First off, I'd like citations to these more colorful stories. Secondly, let's not forget that D-Day wasn't the whole of the fighting on the western front, nor that the Eastern front didn't have its share of garrison troops with division numbers in the triple digits (usually very late Welle);

>High rated guys went to Russia, and low rated went to France.
That is just bullshit and completely unsupported by anything except stray anecdotes. Since when are formations like Lehr and 116h panzer or the 5th Panzer army "low rated"?
>>
>>4134765
>how important the U.S. was in contributing to the defeat of Germany
It's funny because it really was extremely important, but shit like the d-day was minor compared with lend-lease yet I imagine the battles are the only things discussed.
>>
>>4134765
Another example was the SS Armored Division 'Das Reich' which on June 6, 1944 was in the south of France on R&R after being mauled in Russia. They were at their rated manpower, 19,500 troops (SS armored units were the largest German formation of the war). Of these, app, 15,500 were in France and the rest in Germany, mostly on permanent duty. Of the 15,500 app. 9,000 were 17-18 years old, had been in uniform less than three months and had never been in combat.

They were authorized to have 220 Panzer Mk. IVs in inventory, but actually had 77. All of these had seen service in Russia. By the time they reached Normandy the French Resistance destroyed 5 of these. Allied air attacks while they were in transit destroyed none. Other combat vehicles were in similar supply. They were authorized to have 2,000,000 rounds of ammunition for small arms (handguns, submachine guns, carbines, rifles, infantry machine guns (excludes vehicle mounted, a different supply chain)). They actually had 150,000 rounds. While designated a Division, they were really less than a Regiment.
>>
>>4134765
they were the meatgrinder that made sure the american soldiers could land...
>>
>>4135002
Sorry but I do not have titles in front of me. However, most of this comes from the work of S.L.A. Marshall, a U.S. Army historian. After the war he was in charge of a program involving German generals and their staffs who cooperated with the U.S.. Army in helping plan a war with Russia. One popular title that resulted was 'Fighting in Hell'. Most of Marshall's work dealt with German strengths and weaknesses in Russia, and their assessments of the Russians. The project lasted years. the carrot the Germans were offered were better POW conditions and payment, and the stick was threatening to turn them over to the Russians if they were caught lying. This should be enough for you to find these sources.
>>
>>4134765
Soviets did 80% of the job.
Stop lying you BBC twat.
>>
>>4135463
>north african front
>italian front
>lend lease
>battle of britain
>d day
>80% of the job

80 percent of the dying maybe.
Wermacht was so weak abd stretched thin by the time the soviets actually started having victories.
>>
For their Ardennes offensive in December 1944, the Nazis had been marshalling all of their new armor production for that full year, to throw at the Americans. They knew the real threat.

When Paulus surrendered at Stalingrad, it was because his army was incapable of withdrawing. They were not mobile at all, and what mobility they had was miles West, and eating hay, as horses tend to do. To move was to die, absent the artillery and equipment they needed to make an orderly withdrawal. So they surrendered.

The Sovs took 14.5M killed in action because they were idiots. The Nazis slaughtered them in droves, not because they were using their best forces, but because the Sovs were degenerate morons.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.