where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by jesk » 27 Apr 2019 18:35

Hitler attached great importance to the occupation of Europe. About 2 million Germans carried the occupation service there. And from there it was impossible to take troops.

https://maxpark.com/community/14/content/1831658

For some reason, it is believed that in June 1941, as many as 5 million Wehrmacht soldiers crossed the border with the USSR. This common myth is easily refuted.

The number of Wehrmacht in June 1941 reached:

7,234 thousand people (Muller – Gillebrandt) including:

1. The current army - 3.8 million people.

2. Army Reserve - 1.2 million people.

3. Air Force - 1.68 million.

4. SS troops - 0.15 million people.

Explanation:

The army of the reserve in the number of 1.2 million people in the aggression against the USSR was not involved. It was intended for military districts in Germany itself.

Civilian-hivi — counted into the total number indicated above. At the beginning of the Second World War, they did not actively participate in the battles.

WHERE WERMAHTA TROOPS HAVE BEEN?

The Wehrmacht in June 1941 had about 700,000 soldiers in France, Belgium and Holland, in case of Allied landings.

In the remaining occupation zones — Norway, Austria, Czechoslovakia, the Balkans, Crete, Poland — as many as 1,000,000 soldiers were taken away from the Wehrmacht.

Riots and uprisings flared up regularly and a large number of Wehrmacht troops in the occupied territories were needed to maintain order.

General Rommel's African corps had about 100,000 men. The total number of Wehrmacht troops in the Middle East region reached 300,000.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by wm » 27 Apr 2019 19:16

MarkN wrote:
27 Apr 2019 16:24
They always knew they would never have enough to completely defeat the Soviets.
That's pretty bad, the fact that the majority of Soviet territory was going to be unoccupied.

Stalin could have always invited the US Army (he asked for British divisions shortly after the invasion started) to help him, he was flexible. Stalinism was communism plus "whatever works", "by any means necessary" - he would do it.

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 657
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
Location: scotland

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by doogal » 27 Apr 2019 19:57

jesk wrote -
For some reason, it is believed that in June 1941, as many as 5 million Wehrmacht soldiers crossed the border with the USSR. This common myth is easily refuted.
it is fairly simple to refute this, its not common to think that please show me who thinks that jesk ??

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by jesk » 27 Apr 2019 20:28

doogal wrote:
27 Apr 2019 19:57
jesk wrote -
For some reason, it is believed that in June 1941, as many as 5 million Wehrmacht soldiers crossed the border with the USSR. This common myth is easily refuted.
it is fairly simple to refute this, its not common to think that please show me who thinks that jesk ??
And this is all that could highlight? What about the lack of resources for Barbarossa, when 2 million German soldiers carried the occupation service in Europe. Why such an expensive occupation !?

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by MarkN » 27 Apr 2019 23:42

wm wrote:
27 Apr 2019 19:16
MarkN wrote:
27 Apr 2019 16:24
They always knew they would never have enough to completely defeat the Soviets.
That's pretty bad, the fact that the majority of Soviet territory was going to be unoccupied.
It was certainly bad for the third reich's longevity. :lol:

There was a complete disconnect in Berlin's strategic thinking. Dear leader wanted to erase 'jewish bolshevism' from the map, the Heer recognised that they didn't have anywhere near the combat potential to deliver dear leader's desired policy. So a compromise was designed (BARBAROSSA) and wishful thinking was deployed to connect the unconnected. To make matters worse, the Heer chose to ignore the warnings that even the compromise was not doable and promptly failed to deliver even that. Didn't even get close.

BARBAROSSA was the product of a psychopath's racist, deluded cravings. The result of BARBAROSSA (failure), and the outcome, was the product of hubris, abysmal military strategy and tactical decionmaking.

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 657
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
Location: scotland

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by doogal » 28 Apr 2019 00:30

Why such an expensive occupation
There was little choice but to garrison the occupied territories. They were taken by force and stripped of industry and wealth, to not garrison them would be to flirt with disaster. But it would be fair to say that some occupied territories ( for instance Norway ) had higher levels of deployment than were actually needed.
I would ask which countries you consider able to be left ungarrisoned ??

2 million German soldiers carried the occupation service in Europe
if you could provide your sources for this number. And suggest a suitable figure for occupying these territories:

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by jesk » 28 Apr 2019 06:13

doogal wrote:
28 Apr 2019 00:30
Why such an expensive occupation
There was little choice but to garrison the occupied territories. They were taken by force and stripped of industry and wealth, to not garrison them would be to flirt with disaster. But it would be fair to say that some occupied territories ( for instance Norway ) had higher levels of deployment than were actually needed.
I would ask which countries you consider able to be left ungarrisoned ??

2 million German soldiers carried the occupation service in Europe
if you could provide your sources for this number. And suggest a suitable figure for occupying these territories:
One of the alternatives. As seen, besides a lot in Norway to me and you have nothing to say. The topic has not been disclosed. How many soldiers are needed for the occupation of European countries, in the context of a shortage of people for Barbarossa.
Fromm said he had resources for 5 months, they were only enough for 2 ...
Sid Guttridge wrote:
27 Apr 2019 12:12
Fromm, head of the Ersatzheer, thought he had enough replacements for five months. In fact they were needed in two months because casualty rates were much higher than anticipated. This was clearly an Army calculation.

However, Hitler ordered the war and had absolute authority, so he, at the very least, shares the blame. If he "wouldn't" make the extra troops available, he was clearly at fault. If he "couldn't" make the extra troops available then he was also at fault for launching a campaign for which he had insufficient resources.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10391
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by ljadw » 28 Apr 2019 07:57

doogal wrote:
28 Apr 2019 00:30
Why such an expensive occupation[/quote


There was little choice but to garrison the occupied territories. They were taken by force and stripped of industry and wealth, to not garrison them would be to flirt with disaster. But it would be fair to say that some occupied territories ( for instance Norway ) had higher levels of deployment than were actually needed.
I would ask which countries you consider able to be left ungarrisoned ??

2 million German soldiers carried the occupation service in Europe
if you could provide your sources for this number. And suggest a suitable figure for occupying these territories:
From Nigel Askey Operation Barbarossa Volume II B P 82
Norway : 123000
AG D West
7th A : 141000
1st A : 106000
15th A : 205000
Reserves : 55000

12th A (Balkans ) : 169000

DAK : 82000

Replacement Army : 1076000

Total : 1960000,of whom less than 900000 for occupation duties . The 2 million figure for occupation forces is wrong .
The figure of 1960000 includes army, WSS, LW ground and Naval Coastal artillery units .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10391
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by ljadw » 28 Apr 2019 08:04

2 other points :
1 Most of the units ( some 50 divisions ) who were not committed for Barbarossa, were not fit for Barbarossa .
2 The replacement figures given by Fromm are irrelevant, as more replaacements would not help the Germans .Besides, the campaign in the East could only succeed if it was won in 2 months. Thus there were no replacements needed for 5 months .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10391
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by ljadw » 28 Apr 2019 08:50

doogal wrote:
28 Apr 2019 00:30


But it would be fair to say that some occupied territories ( for instance Norway ) had higher levels of deployment than were actually needed.
123000 men for Norway was not excessive, given the enormous coast that had to be guarded

aurelien wolff
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 12 Aug 2018 00:31
Location: france,alsace

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by aurelien wolff » 28 Apr 2019 09:35

I would say that with or without manstein germany couldn't win against soviet union(logisiti? Industrial power? Ressources?).

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10391
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by ljadw » 28 Apr 2019 11:57

aurelien wolff wrote:
28 Apr 2019 09:35
I would say that with or without manstein germany couldn't win against soviet union(logisiti? Industrial power? Ressources?).
generals do not win wars .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10391
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by ljadw » 28 Apr 2019 11:59

jesk wrote:
27 Apr 2019 18:35
Hitler attached great importance to the occupation of Europe. About 2 million Germans carried the occupation service there. And from there it was impossible to take troops.

https://maxpark.com/community/14/content/1831658

For some reason, it is believed that in June 1941, as many as 5 million Wehrmacht soldiers crossed the border with the USSR. This common myth is easily refuted.

The number of Wehrmacht in June 1941 reached:

7,234 thousand people (Muller – Gillebrandt) including:

1. The current army - 3.8 million people.

2. Army Reserve - 1.2 million people.

3. Air Force - 1.68 million.

4. SS troops - 0.15 million people.

Explanation:

The army of the reserve in the number of 1.2 million people in the aggression against the USSR was not involved. It was intended for military districts in Germany itself.

Civilian-hivi — counted into the total number indicated above. At the beginning of the Second World War, they did not actively participate in the battles.

WHERE WERMAHTA TROOPS HAVE BEEN?

The Wehrmacht in June 1941 had about 700,000 soldiers in France, Belgium and Holland, in case of Allied landings.

In the remaining occupation zones — Norway, Austria, Czechoslovakia, the Balkans, Crete, Poland — as many as 1,000,000 soldiers were taken away from the Wehrmacht.

Riots and uprisings flared up regularly and a large number of Wehrmacht troops in the occupied territories were needed to maintain order.

General Rommel's African corps had about 100,000 men. The total number of Wehrmacht troops in the Middle East region reached 300,000.
Austria was not an occupation zone .

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by MarkN » 28 Apr 2019 14:19

ljadw wrote:
28 Apr 2019 08:04
Besides, the campaign in the East could only succeed if it was won in 2 months.
Do you have evidence for this statement or did you just make it up?

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 657
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
Location: scotland

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by doogal » 28 Apr 2019 15:38

rom Nigel Askey Operation Barbarossa Volume II B P 82
Norway : 123000
AG D West
7th A : 141000
1st A : 106000
15th A : 205000
Reserves : 55000

12th A (Balkans ) : 169000

DAK : 82000

Replacement Army : 1076000

Total : 1960000,of whom less than 900000 for occupation duties . The 2 million figure for occupation forces is wrong .
The figure of 1960000 includes army, WSS, LW ground and Naval Coastal artillery units .
I think it is clear that even a significant reduction of occupation forces and there use in the east would not in any real sense have had a positive effect. In reality it may have hastened Nazi Germanys defeat.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”