The defence of Narva-the final countdown of army group NORTH

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
User avatar
Robert Rojas
In memoriam
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002, 05:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.
Contact:

RE: The Defense of Narva & Final Countdown of A.G.N.

#16

Post by Robert Rojas » 04 Sep 2003, 09:09

Greetings to both citizen Hans N. and the community as a whole. In respect to your assertion as expressed on Wednesday - September 03, 2003 - 7:33pm, old Uncle Bob is of the same frame of mind as citizen Andy H. (refer Wednesday - September 03, 2003 - 5:40pm). Whether you like it or not, the Wehrmacht's Army Group North became Europe's largest self-contained prisoner-of-war camp when it was finally enveloped on October 18, 1944 after the German abandonment of Tilsit. The resources of Army Group North were vitally needed to fill the gigantic void left by the wholesale destruction of Army Group Center during the great Soviet Summer offensive of June 21, 1944. These now isolated formations now, in effect, contributed nothing to the Third Reich's overall war effort. Field Marshal Walter Model could have used these veteran troops to exact a terrible toll on the advancing Red Army in Poland. The actions in and around Narva might have achieved a modicum of "glory" for its varied participants, but sadly to say, the effort achieved very little else. In short, the all knowing Bohemian Corporal should have abandoned the Baltic States and radically shortened the frontage it was desperately attempting to defend. It just might have bought enough time for the orderly evacuation of the Eastern States of the One Thousand Year Reich. Well, that's my two pfennigs on the subject. As always, I would like to bid you a wonderful day over in the land of the midnight sun.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :|

User avatar
Polynike
Member
Posts: 524
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 23:14
Location: Gibraltar

#17

Post by Polynike » 04 Sep 2003, 23:42

ill check it our bob cheers


User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

#18

Post by Andy H » 05 Sep 2003, 00:41

Hans N wrote:
Andy Hill wrote
Quote:
Better that the troops were along the Oder etc. Yes they wouldn't have staved of the deafeat but Germany would have kept going a bit longer
.

Not so shure about that, coz every feet the Russians gained the harder they fought! The German forces fought for their lifes and familys! The beleaves in The Third Reich was thinning out for every day that passed.
Germany was counting on that the western allies would continue the war but against the Russians!

Benoit Douville wrote:
I agree, The Red Army suffered for almost every yard they gained in Curland and I don't think it was a waste of men and material for Germany. The combat troops were more fanatic than in 1941 when they invaded the Soviet Union!

I'm sorry but your both missing the point of my arguement. Yes I agree the Germans in Courland made the Russians pay for every step they made into the peninsula, but what if the Russians didn't attack and just kept the Germans bottled up instead?.

That's why it was a waste because I've stated it was only the Russian decision to attack the Germans that made them of any limited use to the rest of Germany

Andy H

[/img]

User avatar
Hans N
Member
Posts: 292
Joined: 01 Apr 2002, 16:40
Location: Sweden

#19

Post by Hans N » 05 Sep 2003, 01:29

You can never bottle up a huge fighting force that easy. Take a look at Rommel in North Africa and Tobruk! They would have and was a big pain in the opponents ass and it could be a unleashed Dog when and if braking out.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

#20

Post by Andy H » 05 Sep 2003, 15:12

Sorry Hans but I'm not with you on this.

Yes on the face of it the force was formidable looking, but would it be offensively effective, and again where would it head in this attack?

Tobruk was a pain in the ass to German forces in N.Africa because it denied them access to a vital port. There was nothing of such value in Courland that would warrant all out attacks, other than just destroying German forces for the sake of it.

Andy H

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

#21

Post by Juha Tompuri » 06 Sep 2003, 21:35

Excuse my ignorance, but was Sinimäki (Sinimägi?) at Narva front?


Regards, Juha

User avatar
nublu
Member
Posts: 243
Joined: 01 Aug 2003, 12:03
Location: Estonia
Contact:

#22

Post by nublu » 15 Apr 2004, 00:19

Juha Tompuri wrote:Excuse my ignorance, but was Sinimäki (Sinimägi?) at Narva front?


Regards, Juha
yep it was

Sinimäed is estonian name for heights just bit west from Narva river. in German war literarture it's more known like Tannenberg line.

rgrds


Toomas

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#23

Post by Andreas » 15 Apr 2004, 11:58

I have yet to come across a single military historian who thinks that leaving AG North/Kurland in the baltics was a good idea. As always, the force their could be neutralised by much lower numbers of Soviet soldiers, because they no longer posed an operational threat. It was clear they would never attack again.

German generals such as Guderian argued with Hitler to have the forces withdrawn from the peninsula. Inserting the divisions into the Vistula defenses may well have prevented the total rout that ensued after the launch of the Vistula-Oder operation, and enabled the Wehrmacht to hold some of the intermediate defensive lines (see e.g. Magenheimer 'Abwehrschlacht an der Weichsel 1945' or Duffy 'Red Storm on the Reich' for the problems the Wehrmacht had in manning the defenses between the Vistula and the Oder.

A total waste of lives and combat power.

User avatar
nublu
Member
Posts: 243
Joined: 01 Aug 2003, 12:03
Location: Estonia
Contact:

#24

Post by nublu » 16 Apr 2004, 13:56

sry, but you forgot the national groups who were figting those battles.

Estonians were fighting for Narva river and for tannenberg line and for Emajõgi line very much. Because they felt like defending homeland.

On Kurland - latvian 19th division was also defending their homeland. and fighting for it.

Sure, on both lines of defence were also other units. Some german, some international ss units. But when germans were retreating from estonia, almost half of estonians prefered to stay in astonia. 20th grenadier division was practicallyu formed again.

i can imagine how much estonians and latvians would retreat from baltics without any serious battles....

rgrds

Toomas

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#25

Post by Andreas » 16 Apr 2004, 14:03

My post was only relating to German formations, which were the majority of the formations in questions. I should have made that more clear. The Estonian and Latvian units on the German side certainly did get the sh*tty end of the stick in the whole deal.

I was also more referring to the Kurland question than the defense of Narwa. There I stand by what I said - leaving the German divisions in the Kurland pocket was a criminal waste of combat power.

User avatar
cyberdaemon
Member
Posts: 424
Joined: 11 Mar 2004, 23:04
Location: estonia

#26

Post by cyberdaemon » 21 Apr 2004, 15:59

Andreas wrote:My post was only relating to German formations, which were the majority of the formations in questions. I should have made that more clear. The Estonian and Latvian units on the German side certainly did get the sh*tty end of the stick in the whole deal.

I was also more referring to the Kurland question than the defense of Narwa. There I stand by what I said - leaving the German divisions in the Kurland pocket was a criminal waste of combat power.
i agree - because they were cut away from main support lines means that they suffered bigger losses.

User avatar
Jeabgrow
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 04 May 2004, 06:44
Location: Little Rock

Heinz

#27

Post by Jeabgrow » 06 May 2004, 05:12

Yes, Heinz Guderian thought that the troops sacrificed in the Courland were a complete waste. Since he was command of the OKH at the time i would say his opinion on this issue is most valid. I think this is when Hitler's insane strategies are perpetuated. His obsession with the Hungarian oil fields and the transfer of the Sixth SS Army to take them make me try and perceive his goals. I can see why he made some of his outrageous choices and I think he knew he lost and was trying to get everyone to fight until the death, delaying the Russians as long as possible, inflictiing as many Bolshevist casualties as possible.

Thanks

User avatar
Terranix
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 27 Jan 2003, 15:17
Location: Scotland

#28

Post by Terranix » 24 Jan 2006, 22:13

Donitz, after being asked by Hitler what the effect of a Bolshevik breakthrough to the Baltic would be, said that "control of the Baltic Sea is essential for the importation of Swedish ore which we urgently need for our armament production."

He then said that "In addition, it is critical for the rebuilt submarine forces. The most westward position that still allows us to screen the Gulf of Finland against the Russian fleet is east of Reval. Enemy strongpoints on the Baltic in our immediate proximity in Lithuania or East Prussia would threaten the shipment of ore from Norway and Sweden and, ultimately, stop it completely."

His conclusion was that with the enemy threatening their flanks in the Baltic from Lithuanian airfields it would be completely impossible to supply Heeresgruppe Nord and the Lappland-Armee. Looking at long term strategic things like the viability of forces in Finland and ore for the armaments industry dosen't seem terribly important when we look back and see how little time the war had left to run, but it might have gone even quicker had such manufacture ceased. Similarly it seems a little off to say that the army group in Kurland would have been better off in Germany--some five Soviet army groups (about ten armies, right?) were involved in six large-scale conflagrations trying to seize the area. Nord's diverting these forces (which were by no means merely attempting to contain the area) probably slowed things up just as much as its presence on the front-line would have. Perhaps more so.

Someone mentioned earlier that no military historian saw the sense in the having forces there--Franz Kurowski contends in Bridgehead Kurland that without them Kurland would have fallen rapidly and the Red Army "would have been in a position to close the ring around Konigsberg (Kaliningrad), destroy Memel and Danzig (Gdansk) and, above all, prevent the evacuation of German formations and civilians from the Hela peninsula long before it finally did. The defence of Kurland created the prerequisite for saving 2.5 million Germans from the eastern part of Germany and allowing the transportation of a number of German formations back to the homeland. Hundreds of thousands of wounded and nearly 3.5 million German soldiers would have been lost - perhaps forever - in the vast expanse of Russia had not the defenders of Kurland held out for so long. These facts alone prove the value of having created a ''Fortress Kurland''."

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

#29

Post by Juha Tompuri » 29 Jan 2006, 00:11

nublu wrote:
Juha Tompuri wrote:Excuse my ignorance, but was Sinimäki (Sinimägi?) at Narva front?


Regards, Juha
yep it was

Sinimäed is estonian name for heights just bit west from Narva river. in German war literarture it's more known like Tannenberg line.

rgrds


Toomas
Thanks Toomas,

Sorry for the late reply :oops:

Regards, Juha

User avatar
Benoit Douville
Member
Posts: 3184
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 02:13
Location: Montréal

#30

Post by Benoit Douville » 29 Jan 2006, 05:32

Terranix,

You certainly bring up a great point by mentionning Kurowski contends in Bridgehead Kurland that without them Kurland would have fallen rapidly. I totally agree with the fact that the defence of Kurland created the prerequisite for saving 2.5 million Germans from the Eastern part of Germany.

Juha,

How long have you been a moderator? Congratulations and Good luck.

Regards

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”