Yet you responded. Can't resist it, can you? It's a matter of record that the man you idolise was a dirty old fornicating adulterer and a general who never led an army in battle and the only reason he was there is because the USA put up the money. So, get over it.
They really had no choice but to attack the Seelow Heights as it completely dominated the surrounding landscape. Certainly a difficult objective for any army. My point is that the Russians sustained so many casualties largely because of the tactics they employed. Soviet commanders weren't concerned about casualties effecting the outcome of a battle because they had inexhaustible reserves of replacements.
The M4 was better than the Mark 3 and Most of the Mark 4's that Rommel had. On top of that Rommel usually only had limited amounts of fuel to move his panzers around, especially at el alamein. The 88 was def Rommel's best weapon but even those were not the most numerous thing he had. Pak36/38's were not the most effective AT weapons against M4's.
The Germans didnt really enter the Soviet Union with anything overly superior as far as equipment goes. a large amount of the German tanks were still Panzer 2's. The Mark 3 and few Mark 4's could not navigate soviet terrain without bogging down. The pak36 was nicknamed the door knocker for a reason. The pak38 was okay as long as no soviet T-34 or KV were nearby. The initial men overrun at the beginning of Barbarossa might have an excuse for being surprised. The 600k men encircled at Kiev, the Smolensk battles, etc. not so much. The real thing came down to German leadership, and experienced soldiers form the west front. Hitler actually cut the soviets breaks 3 different times by shifting objectives and reserves up and down along the front.
Rommel didnt have better tanks. He just used them better. The Matilda was better than the German Mark 3 and 4's of the time. The British just stupidly chose to put the Matilda against the 88 to try to assault Tobruk. Rommel also didnt have alot of air support, far less than the British. The Majority of German air power in the med. was concentrated on assaulting Malta, which never fell the entire war, and continued to harass Axis shipping throughout the entire African campaign. Patton had lots of tanks and lots of air support. Rommel never had lots of either. Nor did Rommel ever have lots of fuel to power the few he had. Rommel's best weapons were the 88 and the land mine.
Manstein, and Bock were both also dismissed for dis-obeying Hitler. In fact I think the majority of German Commanders from the Prussian districts all had issues with Hitler.
I dont see this. Although I agree that Rommel's approach did have some dis advantages at the strategic level, he was never in such a position so it cant be proven that he had no real feel for higher command. And I disagree that Rommel had poor understanding of logistics. Rommel was only going to get so much supplies across the Med, which would never be enough to win a war of attrition against the Allies. The fact that Rommel was able to go as far as he did and even keep his forces in tact during withdrawals is a very good accomplishment.
Rommel was able to beat a largely superior force over and over again in Africa, he correctly predicted the D-day Landing locations, he spearheaded the largest single day advance by any German panzer unit. His accomplishments speak for themselves. Rommel seemed to have more bad luck than anything. His men were always undermanned or under supplied, he was the last to receive new weaponry. he was usually over ruled by more senior officers or hitler. He just happened to be on leave during the opening stages of el alamein and D-day. He just happened to be in command of officers related to the July bomb plot.
I wouldnt be so quick to use such numbers. On wiki alone I can give you 3 different estimates. Yours= 7 million This one says 9-14 million http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Human_losses_by_country This one says 8.7 million http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union This article probably explains it best and assures us that no accurate number can be found for soviet losses "In 1993 a study by the Russian Academy of Sciences estimated total Soviet population losses due the war at 26.6 million,[1][2][3] including military dead of 8.7 million calculated by the Russian Ministry of Defense.[4] These figures have been accepted by most historians outside of Russia. However the figure of 8.7 million military dead has been disputed by some historians in Russia because it is in conflict with the official database of the Central Defense Ministry Archive (CDMA) which lists the names of roughly 14 million dead and missing servicemen.[5] Some independent researchers in Russia have put total losses in the war, both civilians and military, at over 40 million"
This offers merit. But how do you feel about Kursk knowing that the soviets lost about 3 times the men and machines as the germans in this battle?
This isnt true. Rommel was well liked by the men under him, and the men who fought against him. Rommel received critics for his methods in France mostly because he cut communication with them, which is why the 7th panzer became known as the ghost division. However, the 7th panzer was one of the most successful divisions in France and Rommel was not only awarded but praised by both his superior Hoth, and the old 7th Panzer commander Stumme (Stumme later served under Rommel in africa) Your also mentioning Rommel leading from the front which wasnt uncommon for many other commanders. Guderian and Patton immediately come to mind. If the French had been competent then the Germans never would have won the battle of france, so this does not matter.
No,no,no,no. Rommel did not often out-run his own communication lines. He usually cut communication. Now Rommel's lead from the front approach was what he took directly from Guderian. It has certain advantages and certain dis-advantages. It isnt a very valid critic. Rommel was chosen for Africa for 2 important reasons, many of which you hint. 1st Rommel had operated independently of other German commanders in France and they didnt like it. 2nd Rommel was a newly appointed General, and thus the youngest among the German command. The most senior and experienced generals were put on the Ostfront. Kesselring, and Von Arnim were sent to Africa. Do you hold the same critic for them? It is well known that Rommel acted against orders in Africa when he was supposed to take a defensive stance but there is no evidence that this would have been a more effective approach. In fact it could have been worse, Rommel wasnt going to receive any extra supplies or support on the defensive, and it would have limited his mobility. Paulus was sent to evaluate Rommel's position in April and reported back to Berlin "Paulus' report back to Berlin described Rommel's weak overall position and his critical shortages of fuel and ammunition" funny enough despite having a "weak overall position and his critical shortages of fuel and ammunition" rommel was able to blunt both operation brevity and operation battleaxe.
It is a disaster because the soviet command saw how easily it could be defended before the advance. Zhukov however, wanted to reach Berlin before Konev and pushed the attack anyways which sacrificed more soviet soldiers for little reason. Even after the first assault failed, and it was clear that Zhukov could simply surround it,he continued to push the assault at the expense of casualties.
Battle of Seelow heights= Part of the Battle of Oder-Neisse between the 9th army and 1st belo front. Seelow heights the area that allowed the germans to cover the largest bridgehead on the oder for the 1st belo front. Im also aware that the 2nd belo front under Rokossovsky had advanced to the north of seelow and at the same time the 1st ukraine front under Konev had reached the Elbe to the south of Berlin. Zhukov did not want Konev to reach Berlin before him and thus forced the assault on seelow which resulted in huge meaningless losses. If Zhukov could put his ego aside then Konev and Rokossovsky would have completely surrounded the 9th army at seelow and it would have saved many lives. But Zhukov was having none of this. Looking here we can see that the soviets had advanced in the north and south of seelow and that seelow was only necessary to take for Zhukov and the 1st belo front. Otherwise it was unimportant, it could have been easily en-circled from the north and south and cut off from berlin at strausberg. So seriously- How about you try to construct a debate, refute something with some knowledge, stop trying to insult people, and stop trying to claim you are somehow more credible than others.
As I suspected. You seem unaware of the autobahn that runs from Seelow to Berlin. That was the reason the attack occurred the way it did for the reasons it did
How did I seem unaware, does this quote not acknowledge this "Seelow heights the area that allowed the germans to cover the largest bridgehead on the oder for the 1st belo front." And this doesnt explain any reason for the attack, unless your Zhukov who doesnt want to get beat to Berlin by Konev. I already posted the picture that showed how insignificant seelow was. It was only one part of the battle of the Oder-Neisse. If you want to construct any kind of argument, then you have to be able to prove that somehow seelow heights had to be taken by a head on assault of the 1st belo front instead of just being cut off by the 1st Ukraine and 2nd belo armies.
How right you are, and the biggest break of all that Hitler gave Stalin was in diverting Wehrmacht resources to saving Mussolini after his worthless Italian forces got hopelessly bogged-down in Greece. If Hitler hadn't stupidly squandered his forces during those extra weeks, farting around in Greece, it is very likely that Guderian could have taken Moscow, and then Stalin would have been stuck out in the Ural Mountains for years, or until the Germans closed in from the west and the Japs closed in on him from the east. And, if all that had happened, the horrific battle(s) of Stalingrad actually might never have occurred at all, and we in the West might be speaking perfect German today, nicht war...?
I see no one has ever heard of Erich von Manstien. Military genius that man. Everyone just ignores him because he spent his whole time after 1940 fighting Russians and never took a break to spar with the Western Allies at any point. Also, every plan he tried to make got (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up by Hitler.
I doubt all that. We might all be speaking perfect german/russian right now if Hitler hadnt been so racist and found a way to co-operate with the soviets instead of killing them though. Turns out the very thing that caused so much death and suffering in europe was also Hitler's biggest weakness. Prejudice. - - - Updated - - - Haha I was the lone vote for Manstein until you came along. And I agree. He was brilliant.
I wonder whether Hitler actually hated Stalin (who wasn't very communist and more me-me-me-ist) for supposedly being communist or because he was just jealous Stalin had a bigger evil empire than him.
Probably both, but one thing is for sure. When 2 psychos get a hold of such power it only results in carnage and suffering. IMO the only person worse than those 2 is Vlad the impaler.
