At what point did Germany lose WW2?

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: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by jesk » 21 Jul 2019 20:45

ljadw wrote:
21 Jul 2019 20:11
To give up Norway (Finland was already abandoned ) would free a lot of Soviet/allied divisions and would result in an invasion of Schleswig-Holstein by the Allies or the Soviets .
About it my previous post. In order to avoid wrong comments, the scientific analysis of a problem is necessary.
Why, after the reduction of the front in the area of Rzhev in March 1943, 9 Model's army headed at Kursk; and the front near Moscow did not collapse?

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

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by jesk » 21 Jul 2019 20:55

Operation Büffel

Operation Büffel ("Buffalo") was a series of local retreats conducted by the German Army Group Centre on the Eastern Front during the period 1–22 March 1943. This movement eliminated the Rzhev Salient and shortened the front by 230 miles, releasing twenty-one divisions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Büffel

'releasing twenty-one divisions' - how??

Kelvin
Member
Posts: 3014
Joined: 06 Apr 2007 14:49

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Kelvin » 22 Jul 2019 03:26

jesk wrote:
21 Jul 2019 07:57
HistPolity wrote:
21 Jul 2019 00:36
I'd say the Third Reich lost the war with the near-simultaneous defeats at Normandy combined with the destruction of Army Group Centre in the East. Both opened up the path for the Western Allies and the Soviets to advance to the borders of Germany its self.

Any action from that point on by the Germans was just a delaying action.
This is a classic misunderstanding of military theory. At least such simple as at Clausewitz. By the beginning of 1945; 45 Wehrmacht divisions were stationed in Latvia, Norway and Finland. Hitler banned the evacuation to Germany. The participation of these divisions in the battles on the Vistula and in East Prussia condensed the German front and allowed them to destroy the advancing Russians.

I agree on that Point. Should Hitler concentrate more troop in vital front, the war Maybe different. In Dec 1944, Hitler transfered 3. 6. 8. 20., 3SS and 5SS Panzer divisions from HG Mitte and A to reinforce Hungary. If he was willing to give up Hungary and Held those divisions in Mitte and A, he would have 19 fast divisions in reserve : 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 16. 17. 19. 20. 25. 3 SS and 5.SS Panzer divisions, Fsch.Pz division HG 1 and PzGren division GD and 10. 18. 20. Pz.Gren Division Brandenburg and Pz.Gren Div. HG2 on Hand when Soviet launched both Vistula Oder and East Prussian offensives.

Should he gave up Latvia, it would release 25 x infantry divisions and 3 x depleted divisions for handling Soviet offensive. If Hitler can protect Berlin and Silesia industrial area from Soviet, the war will be prolonged and a negotiated Peace is possible.
In the western front, If he kept defensive without launching Ardennes offensive, you can see 9. Pz division 's Performance in Marne and 11. Pz division in Lorraine and battle in Arnhem and Hurgen Forest proved that German can delay Allied Advance from reaching the Ruhr should Hitler didn't spend his newly created armoured reserves in Nordwind and Ardennes.

I endorse Jest view anyway. No everything is Destiny. just like many People in 1940 forcast the collapse of British Isles after German 's a series of victories during 1939-40. But we knew, it is different.

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

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by jesk » 22 Jul 2019 15:10

The optimal situation as before "Typhoon". At the front of 350 km Zhukovka - Zharkovsky, 35 German divisions in the first echelon, 10 in reserve.

http://map-site.narod.ru/pologstorkanun ... ifun-1.jpg

In January 1945, the Soviets attacked Ruzhan - Mielec section.( Ружан - Мелец) 400 km.

https://regnum.ru/uploads/pictures/news ... normal.jpg

The Germans needed 40 divisions and 12 in reserve. 52. What did they have? 2, 9, 4 Pz armies.

Order of battle (31 Dec 1944)

2 army

XXVII. Armeekorps
- 542. Volks-Grenadier-Division
- 252. Infanterie-Division
- 35. Infanterie-Division
XXIII. Armeekorps
- 5. Jäger-Division
- 7. Infanterie-Division
- 299. Infanterie-Division
- 129. Infanterie-Division
XX. Armeekorps
- 292. Infanterie-Division
- 14. Infanterie-Division
- 102. Infanterie-Division

Order of battle (31 Dec 1944)

9 army

LVI. Panzerkorps
- 214. Infanterie-Division
- 17. Infanterie-Division
VIII. Armeekorps
- 45. Volks-Grenadier-Division
- 6. Volks-Grenadier-Division
- 251. Infanterie-Division
XXXXVI. Panzerkorps
- 337. Volks-Grenadier-Division
- Festungskommandant Warschau
- Sperr-Brigade 1
- 73. Infanterie-Division

Order of battle (31 Dec 1944)

4 panzer army

XXXXVIII. Panzerkorps
- 304. Infanterie-Division
- 68. Infanterie-Division
- 168. Infanterie-Division
XXXXII. Armeekorps
- 291. Infanterie-Division
- 88. Infanterie-Division
- 72. Infanterie-Division
- 342. Infanterie-Division
- Heeres-Pionier-Brigade 70

-------------------------------

24 divisions on the front line, 7 mobile divisions in reserve. 21 divisions were not enough for the density of military orders level "Typhoon". And this is bad and not all problems:

"Since, on Hitler's orders, tank reserves were advanced to the front line, they were within reach of Soviet artillery fire, suffered serious losses in the first offensive period and could not be used in accordance with pre-designed defense plans, engaging in battle to cover gaps, formed in the battle formations of the German troops."

31 divisions are attacked by 1,2 Belorussians, 1 Ukrainian fronts. 3 million soldiers. The total number of the Red Army is 6.4 million. 600 thousand in Stavka reserve. 3 mln/5,8 mln; 52% of soldiers of total number at the front.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12778
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by ljadw » 22 Jul 2019 17:14

Kelvin wrote:
22 Jul 2019 03:26
jesk wrote:
21 Jul 2019 07:57
HistPolity wrote:
21 Jul 2019 00:36
I'd say the Third Reich lost the war with the near-simultaneous defeats at Normandy combined with the destruction of Army Group Centre in the East. Both opened up the path for the Western Allies and the Soviets to advance to the borders of Germany its self.

Any action from that point on by the Germans was just a delaying action.
This is a classic misunderstanding of military theory. At least such simple as at Clausewitz. By the beginning of 1945; 45 Wehrmacht divisions were stationed in Latvia, Norway and Finland. Hitler banned the evacuation to Germany. The participation of these divisions in the battles on the Vistula and in East Prussia condensed the German front and allowed them to destroy the advancing Russians.

I agree on that Point. Should Hitler concentrate more troop in vital front, the war Maybe different. In Dec 1944, Hitler transfered 3. 6. 8. 20., 3SS and 5SS Panzer divisions from HG Mitte and A to reinforce Hungary. If he was willing to give up Hungary and Held those divisions in Mitte and A, he would have 19 fast divisions in reserve : 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 16. 17. 19. 20. 25. 3 SS and 5.SS Panzer divisions, Fsch.Pz division HG 1 and PzGren division GD and 10. 18. 20. Pz.Gren Division Brandenburg and Pz.Gren Div. HG2 on Hand when Soviet launched both Vistula Oder and East Prussian offensives.

Should he gave up Latvia, it would release 25 x infantry divisions and 3 x depleted divisions for handling Soviet offensive. If Hitler can protect Berlin and Silesia industrial area from Soviet, the war will be prolonged and a negotiated Peace is possible.
In the western front, If he kept defensive without launching Ardennes offensive, you can see 9. Pz division 's Performance in Marne and 11. Pz division in Lorraine and battle in Arnhem and Hurgen Forest proved that German can delay Allied Advance from reaching the Ruhr should Hitler didn't spend his newly created armoured reserves in Nordwind and Ardennes.

I endorse Jest view anyway. No everything is Destiny. just like many People in 1940 forcast the collapse of British Isles after German 's a series of victories during 1939-40. But we knew, it is different.
Hungary was vital for its oil,and without oil the WM could no longer operate .Besides, if he gave up Hungary, the Soviets would invade Austria , and he would need his reserves to defend Austria .
To abandon Latvia would liberate a lot of Soviet divisions who were tied in Latvia and who would participate in the attacks on East Prussia and the Weichsel .
Without the Ardennes offensive, the Allies would cross the Rhine in March 1945 .

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

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by jesk » 22 Jul 2019 17:54

ljadw wrote:
22 Jul 2019 17:14
To abandon Latvia would liberate a lot of Soviet divisions who were tied in Latvia and who would participate in the attacks on East Prussia and the Weichsel .
This is bad logic. I already wrote about this. The Germans liberated many Soviet divisions after the abandonment of Rzhev and they could not win.
Operation Büffel

Operation Büffel ("Buffalo") was a series of local retreats conducted by the German Army Group Centre on the Eastern Front during the period 1–22 March 1943. This movement eliminated the Rzhev Salient and shortened the front by 230 miles, releasing twenty-one divisions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Büffel

'releasing twenty-one divisions' - how??
Image

Boby
Member
Posts: 2712
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 17:22
Location: Spain

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Boby » 22 Jul 2019 18:28

There was also the U-Boat strategy of Hitler/Doenitz in 1944/45.

See Howard D. Grier book for a lot of details on this.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1521
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Peter89 » 26 Jul 2019 12:16

Germany gained a lot by occupying Hungary on 19th March 1944. Unpaid imports from Hungary intensified, and the German population was conscripted en masse. Livestock and grain provided a much-needed food source for the Reich. The oil production (not the refineries!) was partially spared, because the Nagykanizsa site was American possession, so they did not bomb it. Occupying and holding Hungary was a sensible decision from OKW.
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

Kelvin
Member
Posts: 3014
Joined: 06 Apr 2007 14:49

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Kelvin » 27 Jul 2019 12:42

Peter89 wrote:
26 Jul 2019 12:16
Germany gained a lot by occupying Hungary on 19th March 1944. Unpaid imports from Hungary intensified, and the German population was conscripted en masse. Livestock and grain provided a much-needed food source for the Reich. The oil production (not the refineries!) was partially spared, because the Nagykanizsa site was American possession, so they did not bomb it. Occupying and holding Hungary was a sensible decision from OKW.
but after Hungary declared war on US in Dec 41, they should have confiscate property of Hungary-Amercian Petoleum Company, and became US property and US should suppose German will destroy all These if they lost the war.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1521
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Peter89 » 27 Jul 2019 14:16

Kelvin wrote:
27 Jul 2019 12:42
Peter89 wrote:
26 Jul 2019 12:16
Germany gained a lot by occupying Hungary on 19th March 1944. Unpaid imports from Hungary intensified, and the German population was conscripted en masse. Livestock and grain provided a much-needed food source for the Reich. The oil production (not the refineries!) was partially spared, because the Nagykanizsa site was American possession, so they did not bomb it. Occupying and holding Hungary was a sensible decision from OKW.
but after Hungary declared war on US in Dec 41, they should have confiscate property of Hungary-Amercian Petoleum Company, and became US property and US should suppose German will destroy all These if they lost the war.
Not quite.

The anglo-saxon way of war is a "mercantile" way. US did not target the factories they (their companies) possessed, at least they tried to avoid bombing them. They even paid a compensation fee for their bombed companies under Axis control (like Ford Werke in Köln).
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Aida1 » 07 Aug 2019 09:53

jesk wrote:
21 Jul 2019 07:57
HistPolity wrote:
21 Jul 2019 00:36
I'd say the Third Reich lost the war with the near-simultaneous defeats at Normandy combined with the destruction of Army Group Centre in the East. Both opened up the path for the Western Allies and the Soviets to advance to the borders of Germany its self.

Any action from that point on by the Germans was just a delaying action.
This is a classic misunderstanding of military theory. At least such simple as at Clausewitz. By the beginning of 1945; 45 Wehrmacht divisions were stationed in Latvia, Norway and Finland. Hitler banned the evacuation to Germany. The participation of these divisions in the battles on the Vistula and in East Prussia condensed the German front and allowed them to destroy the advancing Russians.
Germany could certainly not afford to spread itself thin.The only way to have depth in defense and sufficient reserves in the essential areas was to give up terrain elsewhere.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Aida1 » 07 Aug 2019 09:58

ljadw wrote:
22 Jul 2019 17:14
Kelvin wrote:
22 Jul 2019 03:26
jesk wrote:
21 Jul 2019 07:57
HistPolity wrote:
21 Jul 2019 00:36
I'd say the Third Reich lost the war with the near-simultaneous defeats at Normandy combined with the destruction of Army Group Centre in the East. Both opened up the path for the Western Allies and the Soviets to advance to the borders of Germany its self.

Any action from that point on by the Germans was just a delaying action.
This is a classic misunderstanding of military theory. At least such simple as at Clausewitz. By the beginning of 1945; 45 Wehrmacht divisions were stationed in Latvia, Norway and Finland. Hitler banned the evacuation to Germany. The participation of these divisions in the battles on the Vistula and in East Prussia condensed the German front and allowed them to destroy the advancing Russians.

I agree on that Point. Should Hitler concentrate more troop in vital front, the war Maybe different. In Dec 1944, Hitler transfered 3. 6. 8. 20., 3SS and 5SS Panzer divisions from HG Mitte and A to reinforce Hungary. If he was willing to give up Hungary and Held those divisions in Mitte and A, he would have 19 fast divisions in reserve : 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 16. 17. 19. 20. 25. 3 SS and 5.SS Panzer divisions, Fsch.Pz division HG 1 and PzGren division GD and 10. 18. 20. Pz.Gren Division Brandenburg and Pz.Gren Div. HG2 on Hand when Soviet launched both Vistula Oder and East Prussian offensives.

Should he gave up Latvia, it would release 25 x infantry divisions and 3 x depleted divisions for handling Soviet offensive. If Hitler can protect Berlin and Silesia industrial area from Soviet, the war will be prolonged and a negotiated Peace is possible.
In the western front, If he kept defensive without launching Ardennes offensive, you can see 9. Pz division 's Performance in Marne and 11. Pz division in Lorraine and battle in Arnhem and Hurgen Forest proved that German can delay Allied Advance from reaching the Ruhr should Hitler didn't spend his newly created armoured reserves in Nordwind and Ardennes.

I endorse Jest view anyway. No everything is Destiny. just like many People in 1940 forcast the collapse of British Isles after German 's a series of victories during 1939-40. But we knew, it is different.

To abandon Latvia would liberate a lot of Soviet divisions who were tied in Latvia and who would participate in the attacks on East Prussia and the Weichsel .
Without the Ardennes offensive, the Allies would cross the Rhine in March 1945 .
The red army could afford to have forces tied down in Latvia.Germany could not.Germany would gain by giving up non essential terrain and strengthen defenses in Germany.

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

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by jesk » 07 Aug 2019 10:08

Aida1 wrote:
07 Aug 2019 09:58
ljadw wrote:
22 Jul 2019 17:14
Kelvin wrote:
22 Jul 2019 03:26
jesk wrote:
21 Jul 2019 07:57
HistPolity wrote:
21 Jul 2019 00:36
I'd say the Third Reich lost the war with the near-simultaneous defeats at Normandy combined with the destruction of Army Group Centre in the East. Both opened up the path for the Western Allies and the Soviets to advance to the borders of Germany its self.

Any action from that point on by the Germans was just a delaying action.
This is a classic misunderstanding of military theory. At least such simple as at Clausewitz. By the beginning of 1945; 45 Wehrmacht divisions were stationed in Latvia, Norway and Finland. Hitler banned the evacuation to Germany. The participation of these divisions in the battles on the Vistula and in East Prussia condensed the German front and allowed them to destroy the advancing Russians.

I agree on that Point. Should Hitler concentrate more troop in vital front, the war Maybe different. In Dec 1944, Hitler transfered 3. 6. 8. 20., 3SS and 5SS Panzer divisions from HG Mitte and A to reinforce Hungary. If he was willing to give up Hungary and Held those divisions in Mitte and A, he would have 19 fast divisions in reserve : 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 16. 17. 19. 20. 25. 3 SS and 5.SS Panzer divisions, Fsch.Pz division HG 1 and PzGren division GD and 10. 18. 20. Pz.Gren Division Brandenburg and Pz.Gren Div. HG2 on Hand when Soviet launched both Vistula Oder and East Prussian offensives.

Should he gave up Latvia, it would release 25 x infantry divisions and 3 x depleted divisions for handling Soviet offensive. If Hitler can protect Berlin and Silesia industrial area from Soviet, the war will be prolonged and a negotiated Peace is possible.
In the western front, If he kept defensive without launching Ardennes offensive, you can see 9. Pz division 's Performance in Marne and 11. Pz division in Lorraine and battle in Arnhem and Hurgen Forest proved that German can delay Allied Advance from reaching the Ruhr should Hitler didn't spend his newly created armoured reserves in Nordwind and Ardennes.

I endorse Jest view anyway. No everything is Destiny. just like many People in 1940 forcast the collapse of British Isles after German 's a series of victories during 1939-40. But we knew, it is different.

To abandon Latvia would liberate a lot of Soviet divisions who were tied in Latvia and who would participate in the attacks on East Prussia and the Weichsel .
Without the Ardennes offensive, the Allies would cross the Rhine in March 1945 .
The red army could afford to have forces tied down in Latvia.Germany could not.Germany would gain by giving up non essential terrain and strengthen defenses in Germany.
This is not an answer. Critics say the Soviet strike could be stronger:
ljadw wrote:
22 Jul 2019 17:14
To abandon Latvia would liberate a lot of Soviet divisions who were tied in Latvia and who would participate in the attacks on East Prussia and the Weichsel .
How to be? It is probably true to say that the reduction of the front in the case of the Red Army frees up forces. The term "density of defense" with the number of bullets and shells per kilometer of front on the eastern front is always valid.

Operation Büffel

Operation Büffel ("Buffalo") was a series of local retreats conducted by the German Army Group Centre on the Eastern Front during the period 1–22 March 1943. This movement eliminated the Rzhev Salient and shortened the front by 230 miles, releasing twenty-one divisions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Büffel

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by Aida1 » 07 Aug 2019 10:19

jesk wrote:
07 Aug 2019 10:08
Aida1 wrote:
07 Aug 2019 09:58
ljadw wrote:
22 Jul 2019 17:14
Kelvin wrote:
22 Jul 2019 03:26
jesk wrote:
21 Jul 2019 07:57

This is a classic misunderstanding of military theory. At least such simple as at Clausewitz. By the beginning of 1945; 45 Wehrmacht divisions were stationed in Latvia, Norway and Finland. Hitler banned the evacuation to Germany. The participation of these divisions in the battles on the Vistula and in East Prussia condensed the German front and allowed them to destroy the advancing Russians.

I agree on that Point. Should Hitler concentrate more troop in vital front, the war Maybe different. In Dec 1944, Hitler transfered 3. 6. 8. 20., 3SS and 5SS Panzer divisions from HG Mitte and A to reinforce Hungary. If he was willing to give up Hungary and Held those divisions in Mitte and A, he would have 19 fast divisions in reserve : 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 16. 17. 19. 20. 25. 3 SS and 5.SS Panzer divisions, Fsch.Pz division HG 1 and PzGren division GD and 10. 18. 20. Pz.Gren Division Brandenburg and Pz.Gren Div. HG2 on Hand when Soviet launched both Vistula Oder and East Prussian offensives.

Should he gave up Latvia, it would release 25 x infantry divisions and 3 x depleted divisions for handling Soviet offensive. If Hitler can protect Berlin and Silesia industrial area from Soviet, the war will be prolonged and a negotiated Peace is possible.
In the western front, If he kept defensive without launching Ardennes offensive, you can see 9. Pz division 's Performance in Marne and 11. Pz division in Lorraine and battle in Arnhem and Hurgen Forest proved that German can delay Allied Advance from reaching the Ruhr should Hitler didn't spend his newly created armoured reserves in Nordwind and Ardennes.

I endorse Jest view anyway. No everything is Destiny. just like many People in 1940 forcast the collapse of British Isles after German 's a series of victories during 1939-40. But we knew, it is different.

To abandon Latvia would liberate a lot of Soviet divisions who were tied in Latvia and who would participate in the attacks on East Prussia and the Weichsel .
Without the Ardennes offensive, the Allies would cross the Rhine in March 1945 .
The red army could afford to have forces tied down in Latvia.Germany could not.Germany would gain by giving up non essential terrain and strengthen defenses in Germany.
This is not an answer. Critics say the Soviet strike could be stronger:
ljadw wrote:
22 Jul 2019 17:14
To abandon Latvia would liberate a lot of Soviet divisions who were tied in Latvia and who would participate in the attacks on East Prussia and the Weichsel .
How to be? It is probably true to say that the reduction of the front in the case of the Red Army frees up forces. The term "density of defense" with the number of bullets and shells per kilometer of front on the eastern front is always valid.

Operation Büffel

Operation Büffel ("Buffalo") was a series of local retreats conducted by the German Army Group Centre on the Eastern Front during the period 1–22 March 1943. This movement eliminated the Rzhev Salient and shortened the front by 230 miles, releasing twenty-one divisions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Büffel
To achieve defenselines that were deep enough with reserves behind it Germany needed to give up terrain.That was never done enough.

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

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Post by jesk » 07 Aug 2019 10:29

Aida1 wrote:
07 Aug 2019 10:19
jesk wrote:
07 Aug 2019 10:08
Aida1 wrote:
07 Aug 2019 09:58
ljadw wrote:
22 Jul 2019 17:14
Kelvin wrote:
22 Jul 2019 03:26



I agree on that Point. Should Hitler concentrate more troop in vital front, the war Maybe different. In Dec 1944, Hitler transfered 3. 6. 8. 20., 3SS and 5SS Panzer divisions from HG Mitte and A to reinforce Hungary. If he was willing to give up Hungary and Held those divisions in Mitte and A, he would have 19 fast divisions in reserve : 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 16. 17. 19. 20. 25. 3 SS and 5.SS Panzer divisions, Fsch.Pz division HG 1 and PzGren division GD and 10. 18. 20. Pz.Gren Division Brandenburg and Pz.Gren Div. HG2 on Hand when Soviet launched both Vistula Oder and East Prussian offensives.

Should he gave up Latvia, it would release 25 x infantry divisions and 3 x depleted divisions for handling Soviet offensive. If Hitler can protect Berlin and Silesia industrial area from Soviet, the war will be prolonged and a negotiated Peace is possible.
In the western front, If he kept defensive without launching Ardennes offensive, you can see 9. Pz division 's Performance in Marne and 11. Pz division in Lorraine and battle in Arnhem and Hurgen Forest proved that German can delay Allied Advance from reaching the Ruhr should Hitler didn't spend his newly created armoured reserves in Nordwind and Ardennes.

I endorse Jest view anyway. No everything is Destiny. just like many People in 1940 forcast the collapse of British Isles after German 's a series of victories during 1939-40. But we knew, it is different.

To abandon Latvia would liberate a lot of Soviet divisions who were tied in Latvia and who would participate in the attacks on East Prussia and the Weichsel .
Without the Ardennes offensive, the Allies would cross the Rhine in March 1945 .
The red army could afford to have forces tied down in Latvia.Germany could not.Germany would gain by giving up non essential terrain and strengthen defenses in Germany.
This is not an answer. Critics say the Soviet strike could be stronger:
ljadw wrote:
22 Jul 2019 17:14
To abandon Latvia would liberate a lot of Soviet divisions who were tied in Latvia and who would participate in the attacks on East Prussia and the Weichsel .
How to be? It is probably true to say that the reduction of the front in the case of the Red Army frees up forces. The term "density of defense" with the number of bullets and shells per kilometer of front on the eastern front is always valid.

Operation Büffel

Operation Büffel ("Buffalo") was a series of local retreats conducted by the German Army Group Centre on the Eastern Front during the period 1–22 March 1943. This movement eliminated the Rzhev Salient and shortened the front by 230 miles, releasing twenty-one divisions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Büffel
To achieve defenselines that were deep enough with reserves behind it Germany needed to give up terrain.That was never done enough.
Yes, but critics insist. The appearance of Russian armies from Latvia will tear apart any German defense. In this case, it is better to refer to practical experience. Demyansk and Rzhev gave 32 divisions, the Russians could not take advantage of the reduction in the number of Germans on the Moscow and Leningrad directions.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”