The heroic resistance of the Hitler Youth at Pichelsdorf bridge, Berlin

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Sandeep, you're running around in circles. The answer was already in the very first reply on the very first page of this topic...

A quick look at the map of the area shows that defense of Pichelsdorf bridge did not have any sense unless Stößenseebrücke some 800 meters to the east was hold as well. That bridge was blown up by Wehrmacht probably around 27-28th of April, as Soviets arrived on its east bank.
Elements of Soviet 125th Rifle Corps arrived west of Pichelsdorf bridge as early as 26th of April, blocking the way out of Berlin.
So any defense after 26th-27th-28th was only "heroic" without any military significance. Somebody just left those boys there to die...

What does your Russian military doctrine say about relentlessly puruing urban features without any military significance with all their might? :roll:

I have posted this in good faith trying to add value to the thread. It will be helpful if all of us make a genuine effort to open our minds to possibilities we hadn't considered before. Mark suggested that this can only happen if new relevant material comes to light.

The above posted material, in my view, throws new light on modern day Soviet tactical battle doctrine in urban settings. I have posted / highlighted those parts which refer to scenarios relevant to us.

To be fair to the thread, readers and Co members, we should apply our minds to new material without a pre decided mind set.

After my exchanges with GregSingh on page 1, a lot of information and analyses came our way . No military doctrine dismisses lightly bridges across rivers splitting a battle salient ....
My reading of the above document may lead to different conclusions than yours. That's ok. But why ridicule it as "my Russian military doctrine"?

Ciao
Sandeep

[histan]

Military operations are all about "ends", "ways" and "means". Physical occupation of a bridge is not an "end" but a "way" of achieving an "end". There are two main "ends" involved here. The first would be to ensure that your own forces could move across the river from one bank to another. The second would be to prevent the enemy from crossing from one bank to another.

At Pichelsdorf the Russians were already on both banks of the river, one Front advancing along the West bank from the North, the other advancing along the East bank from the South - so they didn't need to physically occupy the bridge to achieve the first "end".

There is more than one way to achieve the second "end", not just physical occupation. One way is to occupy one bank of the river and deploy forces to cover the approaches to the bridge. At Pichelsdorf the Russians had control of the West bank of the river and were advancing westwards. So no German forces could cross the bridge from West to East. German forces trying to cross from East to West would find the Russians in that strongest of military positions - strategic offence and tactical defence.

All of this is in line with the principles of war - such as "economy of effort". Also the famous aphorism - before you decide to fight a battle make sure that the value achieved by obtaining victory is worth the price you will have to pay. For the Russian the value to them of physical occupation of the bridge was probably not worth the price they would have to pay to achieve it. At this stage in the war no Russian soldier wanted to risk his life unnecessarily so once they knew that the bridge was defended why bother to attack at all. The simple presence of defenders would be enough - they didn't have to do anything much, just be there.

The Russians advancing from the North down the West bank of the river didn't physically occupy bridges.

Can I infer from this that all these bridges were "heroically" defended and that the conduct of the HJ at Pichelsdorf was in no way different and/or outstanding when compared with the conduct of the defenders of any of the other bridge?

Or can I infer that the Russian believed that they had achieved their "ends" by controlling the movement across the bridges by forcing the Germans to have to fight their way through?

The doctrine you quote was written thirty years after the battle for Berlin and was likely to be influenced by their experiences in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.

You wouldn't use a Field Manual written in 1948 to draw inferences about US army tactics in 1918 of indeed one written in 1974 to draw inferences about US tactics in 1944. Indeed, you wouldn't use RN doctrine at the time to draw inferences about the conduct of the battle of Trafalgar. You look at the circumstances of the the time and the facts available.


Regards

John

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Hi John,

Thanks for a well thought out and very well argued post.

There is a lot of merit in what you say, however do note the following:


[*] There is a fallacy that the approaches to the Havel bridges were secured by the Russians and hence they went against established doctrine which required them to storm these features if faced by weak opposition. Neither the Heerstrasse and it's parallel axes to the Havel, nor the routes to the Spree bridge(s) were found to be secure when the Germans stormed both on 1-2 May.

[*] It is to be noted that the German units which stormed the Weidendammer bridge were a motley collection of KGs and civilians with a few panzers and no artillery support. The formation that stormed the Havel crossing was larger but these were by no means full fledged and well organised military combat efforts.

[*] What the above pathetic attempts could achieve, tell us that a proper breakout attempt by the Berlin garrison as originally planned by the LVI Pz Kr, would have given a big lie to the myth that the Havel route was barred for the Germans.

[*] No, the above urban warfare doctrine of the Russian army was a well thought out and time tested piece of work. And the fact that it was being studied 3 decades later doesn't negate anything. The US Marine Corps is studying Rommel's combat leadership style and approach to fast moving mobile warfare in the 21st century !

Ciao
Sandeep

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Hi Everybody...

On this thread, the issue of "child soldiers", has weighed heavily on the narrative of victimhood of the young HJ troopers at the Pichelsdorfer locations. It has been argued that the term "heroic" may not be appropriate for children pressed into fighting a modern war on behalf of organised State Armies (as against the examples of underage partisans etc).

I thought the case of private Bill Hunter, who joined the British Army at 16 in 1914 and was executed by firing squad in 1916, France, may be of relevant interest in this context.
(https://owlcation.com/humanities/World- ... ed-at-Dawn)

Private William Hunter, 1st battalion, North Lancashire Regiment.

https://owlcation.com/humanities/World-War-1-History-Private-William-Hunter-18-Executed-at-Dawn

bill hunter.jpg (15.36 KiB) Viewed 1787 times

Cheers
Sandeep

[Harro]

William then joined the British Army in 1914, lying about his age and saying he was eighteen instead of sixteen.

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Yes but he pleaded underage when his backside was on the line during the final court martial.

[antwony]

Yes but he pleaded underage when his backside was on the line during the final court martial.

Terrible example, as Harro has pointed out. He lied about his age.

Were plenty of drummer boys in pre war British Army who were KIA in Belgium and France in 1914. Britain, a different country from Nazi Germany, in WW1, a different war than WW2, stopped sending over the young ones.

Why did you post that story? The kid executed had gone AWOL 4 times and tried to escape twice. There are plenty of tragic stories about WW1. Your example... not so much

[GregSingh]

Below are experiences of my friend, who was 13 at that time.
Sadly, he passed away recently.

[..]
I lost all interest in school. I didn’t do my homework, was inattentive in class, which obviously showed in the marks I got. I’m ashamed to say I played truant and started roaming the streets.
[..]
What was to follow was not exactly what I expected. About the middle of April I was on my way home late in the afternoon when two military police men stopped me, asking me what I was up to. I told them I was on my way home. They then suggested that I might be able to do something really good for the war effort and everyone had a duty to help. Well, the way my mind was, they didn’t have to ask twice. They asked me for my address and told me that they would make sure mum was being informed were I was. The next thing I knew I was in some sort of recruiting depot outside of Spandau,[..]
After a couple of days basic training I was told that I was to be stationed at the Zoo Bunker as “Flak Helfer”,[..]
Reflecting on what happened after all these years, I wonder what would have occurred if I had refused to go. As it turned out I got stationed as some sort of an errand boy in the Zoo Bunker.
What I didn’t know was that the MPs who picked me up never informed mum where I was. So, here I was only a short distance from home, but mum didn’t know where I was and I couldn’t get in touch to tell her.
[..]
One day there was a communication breakdown from the command centre to one of the guns on top of the Bunker. It was the middle of the night and I got woken from my sleep to take some message or order up top. That was one of my duties. Within 5 minutes I reported to the command centre, got a capsule and I was on my way up. When I got there I got the shock of my life. The whole gun position was completely obliterated. It had received a direct hit. The gunners were all dead, blown to bits with their gun. I just ran as fast as I could and I can remember being violently sick. I must have passed out, because the next thing I remember was a doctor attending to me. Astonishingly it took only a very short time and everything was restored and it was business as usual.
[..]
This situation lasted for a few days. I lost count of the days. Then, one late afternoon, we were ordered to assemble in one of the passages at ground level. A high-ranking officer informed us that we were about to surrender. Anyone with any weapons had to discard them and shortly after the gate opened and we had our first view of the victors, the soldiers of the Soviet army. We were ordered to march out in single file to be frisked for weapons and valuables, such as gold rings, watches and other jewellery that was promptly confiscated. I can still see one German officer trying to argue the point with one of the soldiers who told him to take off his shiny officers boots. It was either to give up the boots or to get shot there and then. Needless to say the soldier finished up with the boots. Whilst this was going on the rest of us were ordered to form up in a column of three abreast and start marching towards an area of the Tiergarten, where an assembly point for prisoners was supposedly established. Let me here explain a little about the area involved. The Tiergarten is extensive parkland almost in the middle of Berlin. As a boy I spent many hours there playing with my friends or in the winter ice-skating on the lakes there. Under normal circumstances it would have taken me 10-15 minutes to get home. So, you can see it wasn’t far from home. All this went through my mind as we marched through the very bomb ravished parkland. I was absolutely terrified because of the stories we heard of the brutality and savage behaviour of the Russians towards any Germans. I didn’t want to go into a prisoner of war camp. I just wanted to go home. As luck would have it there was some commotion at the head of the column and most of the escorting guards ran forward to see what was happening. Two other young fellows and myself darted sideways into the bushes and just kept running. I don’t know if the others made it because I couldn’t run any further and ducked under a small bridge to rest for a while.
[..]

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Hi Greg..

Did he get home alright? Any other inputs / views from him?

Cheers
Sandeep

[GregSingh]

Sandeep

Yes, he reunited with his mum quite soon.
What follows next is "life in post-war Berlin" rather then about defending it, that's why I stopped there...

Guenter wrote quite a lot about his "young years", up to the age of 20, when he permanently left Germany for Australia.

Greg

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Thanks Greg for the update. However I feel that even his writings on Post War Berlin, in the immediate aftermath of the Berlin battle, might be rich with information and relevant opinions. Among other things there might be anecdotes about other HJ fighters who were able to get away at the end .... their experiences as shared with Guenter. Or the behaviour of the Soviet troops and other allied occupation forces and authorities. Wehrmacht men who were able to hide or escape in the last days, reuniting with their folks in Berlin...etc.

Cheers
Sandeep

[jackconnor]

Hi Rob



Nobody in the modern civilized world finds the use of child soldiers and their actions in any way admirable - so definitely not heroic.

Regards

John

If they fought for their country and did as asked and saved others, then surely they were just as much Hero's as Raymond Steed (The youngest British WW2 casualty, who has been deemed da hero and has a plaque at the British War Museum in London, I saw it with my school trip). I agree it may not be good to use under 16's but they had no choice and many died fighting for there country. I think its wrong to tarnish their memory, just because they were my age.

[Sid Guttridge]

"Child Soldier" is something of a contradiction in terms. You can have armed children, but they tend not to be in trained, disciplined, organized bodies of adults known as armies.

The other point is that the term "child" is a cultural definition. Different societies at different times define the cusp of childhood/adulthood at different ages. In WWII some countries only accepted conscripts at 21. In the UK women initially got the vote at 28. In other countries they can marry at 8. The age of consent differs widely, as does the age alcohol can be bought.

The Hitler Youth were not in the army. However, they were in an organized body run by adults who, in order to gain themselves a few more days or hours of life, were prepared to throw them, under age, under trained and under equipped in the path of a Red Army close to certain victory. Some undoubtedly behaved heroically. Their political leaders did not.

Cheers,

Sid.

[michael mills]

I recall that Richard III of England commanded his first army at the age of 13 or 14.

[Fides Germania]

Hi guys,
I found this post rather amusing, if it were not for the sorrow, irreverance and insult definitly intended by the subscriber;

BillHermann
Member

Re: The heroic resistance of the Hitler Youth at Pichelsdorf bridge, Berlin

One could state that any heroic action in the final days by boys was far more about a propaganda message than any real heroic event. More of a mountian of a mole hill iff anything.
This is the same as handing out Knights crosses in the final days.

I am breaking habit here and assuming that Mr Hermann is from the UK, judging by his helmet shield, which is difficult to make out.
My reply,
It was OK for the Brits to demand a fight to the death, even of boys as young as 12 yo at Isandlwana and Rorkes Drift Mission in 1879 to invade land that was 5000 miles from home. But Mr Hermann and others all make fun, yes make fun, of the sacrifices of the young men of the HJ, OKL, RAD and VolksSturm who did their bit just like those UK boys in Africa, but they fought for their home ground, for their Mothers, Sisters, Aunties or fought to exact revenge against the Ally of the enemies who had already made him an orphan, who may have witnessed his Mother or family running down the street drenched with phosphorous, burning like a human torch. Many armchair historians forget the hatred that the Allies had engendered in the hearts of the German youth.
That is the problem with age. We loose that vitality, that energy, that anger at things which oppress us. So while older Germans, especially many General rank officers who in their old age allowed themselves to grow tired and weary and probably hoped for an end to the war so they could enjoy a well earned retirement, ones such as Heinrici, who this state of mind applies, refused to join the Battle of Berlin, condemning to death these beautiful examples of mankind, the HJ in Berlin, along with all the girls, Nurses and Women he condemned to whore-dom.
History is replete with Battles like that of Berlin that swung the other way due to a General swinging a Korps, a division or even a Regiment into the fray. Lingy led to the loss at Waterloo due to (I think) D'Erlons Corps not marching to Napoleons aid. Leipzig, The Battle of Nations was only won by the Allies as more and more former French Allies swung over to their side, and that was a big Battle. Blucher at Waterloo, was standard German Officer reading. Wellington at Waterloo, he was beaten at 1800 hrs, but he stood firm risking his whole army, and by doing so he was saved by the Prussians.
PS, Pichelsdorf bridge was only one of many, many engagements during the Battle for Berlin.
PPS, In my readings, every historian makes the same mistakes regarding ages of young troops. In late 1944 the Home Army called up the 1928 yera group. So regular troops where 16 to 17 yo in 1945. Not in the VolksSturm, unless had been previously employed in protected industries and joined the VolksSturm as their villages or factories were attacked.
14 and 15 year old boys were only to be used in non combat roles to allow older me to man the front line. If they wanted they could VOLUNTEER for front line duty, but this usually only applied when the chips were down, Breslau, Berlin etc. As for the 12 and 13 year old's, there were guns and Panzerfausts lying about, who was there standing around with free time to stop them. Sometimes you read of Officers sending them home if caught and the Soviets treating them as a joke.
Comments welcome,
regards
Rob