Russian Tactics, and sometimes lack thereof

I find it simply ridiculous that the Red Army was able to lose so many men, tanks, guns, etc. time and time again and yet STILL come back twice as hard to destroy the Wermacht by the end of the war. Their tactic of three men to a rifle was brutally effective in grinding down the Germans, but at what cost of life? They lost 22 million men in the war, and still had one of the biggest armies in the world, plenty to fight the Cold War. The Russians had their moments, like at Kursk, but for the most part their tactics should not have won them the war. I guess it just goes to show you how important a strategic base is for long drawn-out conflicts.

Crete Presentation

Well done, gentlemen. You showed a firm grasp of the chronology of events and also highlighted issues that came up, such as the weapons drop containers and Hitler's rejection of paratroopers as a viable weapon after Crete. I think it was a good example of using specialized troops to do infantry work. The paratroopers were certainly one of the most trained units in the Wermacht, but they were committed en masse in an infantry-like assault on what was a rocky and easily defensible island. Regardless of training, weapons, etc. paratroopers are best used to seize objectives (such as Eben Emael or artillery positions on D-Day), not fight it out with infantry. This tendency for airborne troops to lose on a large scale to regular infantry was once again shown during Operation Market Garden, with the Allies getting the hammer this time. A notable exception to this rule was the defense of Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge, where the 101st Airborne held out against heavy German assaults. Perhaps the American are designed to be better infantry men than shock troopers as in the other nations' forces.

War in the West

Lack of planning and preparation caused problems for the Allies as Germans advanced on them in the War in the West.  Each country had their own idea of how the war should be fought.  Cries of wolf created false expectations for the Allies about the Germans, and this caused confusion when the real attacks came.  When Germany attacked Holland and Belgium the Allies lacked coordination to hold the Germans back.  I think that if the Allied countries had worked together and planned better they could have been more effective.  What would have happened if the Allies had done this?  

Hitler and Christianity

It has been posited by some that Hitler's hatred of the Jews was rooted deeply in Christianity.  

This exert is often cited in defense of that point:  Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

It is also noted that Hitler was born and raised a Catholic, and that the church never excommunicated him, despite the obvious reasons why they could have.  

On the face of it, it seems that the evidence supports the assertion that Hitler believed very strongly that  he was acting as a true Christian ought to.  

On the face of it.

But if one searches on a little deeper, it soon becomes apparent that Hitler's Christianity was a mask assumed for political gain.

In 1941, Hitler was quoted as saying that Christianity was "the invention of sick brains", and that it was a great scourge on par with "the pox".  He went yet further than that, saying that Christianity was "the heaviest blow that ever struck humanity".

The first quote, the one that supports his mission as Christian, was taken from Mein Kampf.  It was intended for public consumption.  Hitler, however insane, was a master of manipulating the public.  He knew that the easiest way to appeal to a population was to appeal to their sense of nationalism and religion.  Thus, he wisely painted his Nazi regime as hammer for an angry God to wield against the Jews.

The latter quotes, however, were taken from private conversations Hitler had.  They were never meant to see the light of day.  It seems to me perfectly logical to assume then, that these quotes more resemble his actual views on Christianity.

Presentations from Feb 13

Presentation 1:  Very informative presentation here.  I particularly enjoyed the bit on the use of gliders as troop carriers.  I also found it very interesting that the use of gliders was Hitler's idea.  This sparked my interest, because Hitler is so rarely considered a great tactician, rather as a great and charismatic speaker.  Certainly, the latter reputation is deserved, but should he be given more credit as a military mind?

Presentation 2:  Coming out of this presentation, I had one question:  Was it worth it?  It seems that Germany paid a high price for Crete.  I've also not heard much that would indicate that they gained much in taking it.  It was insinuated that Germany may have been able to easier defeat Russia, had they not bothered taking Crete.  Interesting hypotheticals abound after this one...

Maria's Feb 13th Presentations Comments

The presentations on Feb 13th were great examples of technology beginning to really enter the war.  For both sides technology was becoming the next great experimental area.  This created great decisions for leaders on both sides.  

Belgium created a great fortress that they thought would not have a problem holding back German troops, but much to their surprise Germans were able to attack them with ease.  German air attacks and glider troops were able to attack the weaker fortress.  

Paratroopers were a new technology that was used in battles like the Battle of Crete.  After this battle the Germans decided that the benefits this technology was not worth its costs.  Paratroopers provided advantages for both sides, but this strategy was also very ineffective.  Many men died trying to land or were easy targets on their way to the ground.  Without having improved or perfected this technology too many men died.  

Feb. 13 Presentation

I was particularly interested in the presentation over the capture of Fort Eben-Emael. I knew very little details about this fort prior to this class, and learned a great deal this Wednesday. It was very interesting that the fort was considered the main barrier against an attack from the east. The fort seemed to have pretty impressive weaponry, yet was vulnerable to an air attack. The element of surprise worked in the Germans' favor and the fort was captured mostly intact. The fort was taken very quickly. It is interesting to think on what kind of impact it would have had on the war if this Belgian fort had been able to hold out a little longer.

Non-aggression Pact

In class on Wednesday, we discussed Barbarossa and Hitler initiating attack on the Soviet Union, when Germany and the Soviet Union were involved in the Non-aggression pact. It was mentioned that Stalin's purpose for entering into this arrangement was to buy time.

If Stalin entered the non-agression pact with Germany to buy time, why was Stalin purging the GRU at the same time? Was he so paranoid that he was blinded to the need for a non-gutted army? I guess I am assuming that he was expecting to be betrayed by Germany, and knew that that fight was inevitable.

The presentation about the fort really caught my attention. The entire going through Belgium to get to France reminded me of the Von Schleiffen Plan which is why I was surprised the same thing would happen again. The use of gliders in an attack was also something I was not aware of. It was truly amazing how a fort of such manitude could be captured so quickly.

WW2 today?

Presentations

I found both presentation pretty informing. The one about the fort was intersting to know that the Belgiums had one last effort to protect themselves was good. To know that they hoped to hold them off for weeks so they and the french could mobolize makes sense to why the belgiums and french fell so fast. I learned that they had one of the most advanced forts. Even though they did have an advanced fort, germans strength prevailed over it.
For the battle the allies learned that paratroopers could be successful is used properly. It lead to the development of paratroopers in other countries all over. but hitler was to rash to rush to judgement over them and scraped any further use of them just shows how unpredictable he was. I learned that there was heavy losses to the allies and the island was a strong hold for them.

I read about the u-boats and the battle of atlantic. To know so few u-boats sunk so many boats was astonishing. To think if the germans could have had more u-boats in the ocean what the damage could have been. Then the US got into the was with shipping equipment over to the other allies and when they lost significant boats, they came up with new and faster ways to build them. This is what i think turned the war in the atlantic around. Without the US coming up with this new way of building them it could've turned extemely disaterous for everyone.

Feb 13th

The presentation regarding the Belgium fortress, Eben Emael, was interesting, because like many others, I was not aware of it.  Built in 1932, the fort overlooked a canal.  It was armed with heavy artillery.  However, it had a major weakness – it was defenseless against air attacks.  As pointed out in the presentation, the Germans took advantage of this information and sent in gliders with troops to surprise the Belgians.  I am not sure I understand how gliders would have been sturdy enough to bring in soldiers, but it obviously worked for the Germans because they took command of the fort.

 

The second presentation on the Battle of Crete posed some interesting thoughts.  Why would this particular place be of importance to the Germans?  What did they stand to gain from taking it?  It is interesting to note that Hitler stopped paratrooper use after this.  Was it because of the high casualties or was there another reason?  Hitler and his high commanders abandoned this tactic while the allies saw the importance of developing air superiority and protection for airfields in light of the German advancements.  It is interesting to note that the allies seemed to be more focused on the threat from the water than the air, until the paratroopers were sent in for attack.        

The Moral Parameters

Hitler and his troops took matters into their own hands, killing for the sake of killing.  The Commissar Order issued by Hitler to execute Russian commissars on one hand because their views were the direct opposite of Nazi ideology and exonerate German soldiers for this same thing on the other hand is sickening but so characteristic of him.  He justified violence against Soviet soldiers by his troops by saying that they were only doing to the Soviets what they had done to the Germans (eye for an eye adage).  His punishment was harsh but just according to him as he worked to snuff out the Bolshevik heresy by destroying the Soviet soldiers and exterminating the Jews.  Three days after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Hitler declared war on the U.S.  He labeled the people of the U.S. as being a mongrelized mixture of races that needed to be snuffed out in the same fashion that the Russian people and the Jews did.  Hitler had no morals to set parameters against.  It is hard to imagine a person who was capable of such carnage and took such enjoyment in slaughtering people day after day.             

the Russian people vs. the Germans

I found it quite interesting that the German army met resistance from the Russian people as a whole. The people of previous countries that he took control of didn't seem to fight back, probably out of fear. The strength of the Russian people can be seen when they stand up to the Germans by spying for the Red army, as read in In Deadly Combat. Hitler underestimated Russia because of the landscape, weather, and the people. The strength of the Red army was great because they believed what they were fighting for and were willing to fight to the death. It was mentioned in class that it was mostly everyday men in the Red army, not trained fighters, this probably made Hitler and his commanders over confident when they should have been prepared for a strong resistance.

Before Wednesday I had never heard of Fort Eben-Emile and the battle for it. I thought this presentation was really interesting. The Germans planned the attack well and managed to keep their secret weapons a secret until they were able to use them. Did the Germans maintain and use the Fort for long?
I am kind of shocked that Hitler didn't see the value of continuing to us the paratroopers. Using them could have potentially changed the outcome of many battles for the Germans. Why did he choose to use the paratroopers while taking over Crete? Did the control of Crete give the Germans large advantages in the war later on? Obviously controling important harbors and bodies of water was very beneficial in regards to supply and troop movement but at what cost to the Germans. How long did they have to fight with the resistance fighters on the island? When did the allies finally take Crete back?
I find it really ironic that Hitler broke his pact with Stalin. What amazed me was that neither one saw what was coming. Stalin had control of a very large country, why wouldn't Hitler want the Soviet Union. It would have provided him with enough land for a lot of his plans. This was a pretty big miscalculation on Stalin's part. What fascinates me is that he was afraid of upsetting Hitler. He was just as tyrannical of a leader as Hitler.

WWII -->Cold War?

As mentioned in 4.10 of the Wilson text (pg. 96) it was hard for the Russians to believe that the U.S. and Britain postponed their Second Front merely for lack of preparation and resources, and not because they secretly wanted to see both countries destroy each other. Did this distrust between the USSR and the US greatly influence the start of the Cold War? Could the tension between the two countries have been relieved simply by throwing some unprepared and under-trained troops into Russia?

Hitler's views about the Red Army

In some ways, I can see why Hitler believed that he had defeated the Russian army. The Germans were capturing tens to hundreds of thousands of prisoners at a time with tons of equipment. I find it hard to believe that most other military commanders of the day would not reach the same conclusion about the Russian army. It takes so long to mobilize and train an army I’m really amazed how quick the Russians could field a new army regardless of the level of training. However, I believe what Russia again shows about Hitler and the German army is the failure to plan for the long range and for things to go wrong. Had they planned for the long run the German army would have had winter clothes and equipment. I wonder if the outcome would have been the same of the eastern front or would have it ultimately lead to Russia’s defeat?

I thought the presentation about Eban Emael showed the gambles that Hitler was always willing to take during the war, which seems to work at the beginning but towards the end of the war blew up in his face. I knew about the battle before but I never realized the importance of the battle and how it could have change the course of the war if the defenders held out longer or if the German paratrooper failed. Also, I wonder how the Germans would have tackled the fort without shaped charges or gliders?

Germany's fatal error: Operation Barbarosa

From a historians point of view, invading Russia is probably the worst mistake one can make as a military strategist.  The vastness of terrain, the large populace, and the horrible weather all make invaders into Russia severely handicapped when attempting to take over such a large and inhospitable country.  Why didn't Germany's leaders realize the fatal errors made by Napoleon's army and others when attempting to invade Russia?  Why didn't they invade in the spring as opposed to summer?  Why didn't they go after Moscow as opposed to be land greedy?  The logistics of invading Russia are just immense and the possibility for failure is enormous.  This seems like a great example of military leaders not learning from history and attempting to conquer a nation based off political sentiment.

operation Barbarbossa

so hitler breaks the non aggression pack with stalin, hitler wanted to take over russia which at first seemed to go wrong, then as we saw in class the circling of areas and ground being covered which seemed like hitler would succeed again, until he headed southeast. some say stalin was a good leader, but it seems as though he was just a powerful man that lead the red army because the soldiers feared for their lives, however, this type of rule matched up against hitlers tactics, therefore they were able to hold off the nazi's and actually start an offensive counter attack to berlin. This seems to have been the first real counter attack on the nazi party and was only able to take place because of two rulers that took the lives of individual rather lightly and did  not take into account lives lost but land protected. this however, I feel was the reason why WWII had a vast turning point, because if hitler went to battle with any other country he would have won.

thoughts on ch. 5/6-a war to be won

Did the Italians do any good in attacking British forces in North Africa and in affect, opening another front and later forcing Germany to commit combat forces to the theater. Had Italy only worried about defending their own land (rather than going offensive) and possibly contributing forces to the Russian front, maybe the axis would have been successful in taking Moscow instead of falling just short. Just imagine the role Rommel and the rest of the German's who ended up fighting in Africa could have played in the Eastern Front.

Italians

I have been wondering about the relations between the Italians and the Germans. When one thinks of Italy in a war, one thinks of flipping sides. After seeing how Hitler continuously ignored and used Mussolini, I was wondering why he continues to side with him? As egotistical as most dictators are, why not leave Hitler? He did not have to join the allies but why stay on Germany's side?

paratroopers at crete

Hitler and the German high command commited several mistakes throughout the war. After the presentation on the invasion of Crete , I couldn't help but think seizing to use airborne infantry was one one them- and how the allies and axis both took away different lessons on paratroopers from Crete. Where the German's saw the negatives, that allies saw the positives in attacks from the air. What impact could German paratroopers have had on the war if they had remained truly airborne soldiers and made more combat drops in later fighting?

North Africa

The battle of North Africa seemed to be between tanks and not so much infantry. I have always wondered about this because would the desert not be a hard place for machinery to operate. Why was the tank so heavily used? I would assume there would be some problems using them and that eventually the commanders would go away from using them as much. Tanks would seem to have a hard time handling in the desert and break down. I know it would be hard for infantry in the desert but you would not have the mechanical problems. I was jsut wondering why the tank was the choosen weapon in the desert.

The presentation on the attack on the Eben Emael was interesting to look at how people thought the war would go. The Belgium thought they could hold up the Germans with forts and that the war would go like World War One. The Germans used new technology and tatics to ovetake the fort. This battle shows how Germany was using new battle tatics, like blitzkrieg, and running over the countries using older tatics. This battle is a good example of how the beginning of the war went as a whole.

North Africa

Today in class we talked about the Italian defeat in North Africa and many of the different amjor players in that area. We did not spend much time on this but I have a couple of questions about this subject. The first is why did the Italians seem to face such an easy defeat but once Rommel arrived in North Africa the war for the area no longer seemed to favor the Allies all the time? Did he have better resources, more troops, or just a better commander? Or was it a combination of all three?

Also I was thinking after class today why Germany would want to spread itself out so much? It was having a war in the western front and about to have one in the eastern front, so why would they then want to go south to Africa? Or did they have enough troops and resources to effectively do this?

Feb. 13 presentations

The presentation on the Belgian fort Eben Emael was a great example of German resourcefulness. As said in class today, during WWI Belgium was able to hold off the German attack, obviously they have learned from past experiences which enabled them to break through Belgium with little trouble. It was interesting to hear about the secret tactics they used and how they practiced with the glider planes on other German occupied forts. Though, I really don't understand how the bombs they used worked. I understand they were strong enough to break through concrete barriers, but did they attach to the structures or something?

The second presentation on the battle on Crete was really the first setback we have heard about in class for Germany, sure they eventually did take over Crete, but their plan did not go as expected and it took longer than expected as well. It was mentioned that this was the last time paratroopers were used, but I was curious, about how long were they actually used? I don't suppose they could have been helpful very long especially because their main objective was the element of surprise and they no longer had that.

No Extra Credit

Dear Students,

I am writing to notify everyone that no student will be receiving extra credit for coming to class on last Wed. during the snowstorn. A student has made a complaint to the Provost's office. In light of this situation, it would be unfair for me to give extra credit opportunities to any student at any time this semester. Earlier today, I had decided I would give extra credit to students who desired to attend the many events this Spring that are WWII related, such as Geoffrey Megargee's (historian at the National Holocaust Museum in D.C.) recent talk on the Holocaust at Washburn and Christopher Browning's (Professor at the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill) upcoming talk at K-State. However, that no longer seems appropriate. I do hope that anyone interested will avail themselves of these great opportunities. There are some very respected historians visiting the Kansas area this semester.

Best,
Lon Strauss

Feb 11-13: 1940 - 41 France, Britain, USSR