One more panzer group in Barbarossa, plans for a two-year campaign

[ljadw]

Nor is it true that the "Ostheer had ~ 300,000 replacements ready when it launched Barbarossa". .... The Ersatzheer had 320,000 trained replacements available at the outset of BARBAROSSA

Typical pedantry. Whether the ~300k replacements were with the Ostheer or available to Ostheer as part of the larger Heer is not a material difference.

The difference is essential : for the period June 22 -August 31 275000 replacements were available, but that does not mean that all of them would be with the front units on August 31: Daily some 4000 men had to be transported to the east,to a frontline from the Black Sea to the East See,which would take days or even weeks . .And these 275000 were not sufficient,as the Blutige Verluste (KIA,WIA,MIA )for this period were 400000 +, not included sick.
For the period after August 31,only 46000 men were available .And no one knew when they would be at their destination
Source DRZW V1 P 856.

[Cult Icon]

I presume that you know who is Volker Berghahn. In 2004 he called Lost Victories totally unreliable .
You know who is Jürgen Förster ? In 1998 he wrote that people as Manstein and Westphal claimed in their memoirs that the WM was a professional, apolitical force who were victims ( not followers ) of Hitler and that MOST GERMANS ( my emphasis ) accepted for too long at face value these self-serving claims .
And Robert Citino ?He said that Manstein defended his reputation and generalship and hided his participation in war crimes and blamed others for everything that went wrong .
These three well-known historians have debunked the memoirs of Manstein,which were unreliable, full of self-serving claims and hided his participation in war crimes ,but blamed the others for what went wrong .
And Förster said that most Germans believed what Manstein was saying .
The memorts from Halder and Guderian were at the same level ,if not lower .
Of course : it was a conspiracy .

This is a nonsensical response that doesn't address the fact that you invented things earlier about the contents of two memoirs and the German officer reports. Do you realize that the Raus memoirs/reports are heavy broken down and analyzed in "Endgame at Stalingrad" Glantz? For an officer's memory it is clear that, despite the errors, it generally matched what happened. Memoirs aren't history, they are just opinions from fading memories.
Mellanthin, Raus, Manstein, Guderian's opinions (via memoir or report) are frequently noted in unit and operational histories, whenever appropriate.

One would wonder if you actually read any the books that you collect crib notes on, and then you repost them over and over again for the purpose of rhetorical debates. Lost Victories/Panzer Operations/Panzer Battles/Panzer Leader do not have contents that display biblical power. They are memoirs in troop command. There is in fact very little that is political in the memoirs, they are military in nature. People have personal responsibility in what they choose to believe in. The conspiracy theory doesn't match the contents if you actually READ the books. You post too much misinformation in forums.

Your response has nothing substantive except status dropping. I couldn't care less about what a generalist author believes it unless I examine it first. They are certainly far less knowledgeable than I in certain areas and good AHF posters. I am aware of the other low quality conspiracy theories that you believe in like you believe in Deep State, Clinton, Marxist, etc.. with similarly small amount of evidence.

I repeat, the truth is that the contents of the memoirs do not match these conspiracy theory descriptions and neither do the German officer reports for the US historical division. You, being not a student of the Eastern Front besides your fixation on a narrow range of questions didn't pick up it.

[David Thompson]

Three posts from jesk, containing unsourced factual claims and insults, were removed pursuant to the forum rules and previous thread warnings.

[Richard Anderson]

What is certain is that by Dec 1941 the German army was understrength and had few replacements arriving, not to mention being woefully ill-equipped for war in Russian winter conditions, a situation still not rectified a year later, especially when compared to Soviet winter equipment.

Terry, it is equally certain that personnel state was reached by them much earlier, effectively by mid-July when the supply of Ersatz in the FEB was exhausted. While the campaign "exchange rate" greatly favored the Germans, they were incapable of supplying the replacements needed to sustain their side of the campaign, but the Soviets were. Whether or not an additional Panzergruppe changes that...or simply creates more penetrations unsupported by infantry, so not sustainable...is speculation.

[MarkN]

Whether or not an additional Panzergruppe changes that...or simply creates more penetrations unsupported by infantry, so not sustainable...is speculation.

Indeed. Speculation.

When asked to provide some "factual value" to his claim that the additional forces would succeed, TheMarcksPlan responded with:

The historical record of Red Army and Ostheer performance during panzer Kesselschlachten is all I need.
EVERY time the Germans massed panzer forces of both flanks of a Red Army formation and tried to encircle it, they succeeded

...and...

All I need is for the extra divisions to perform as average German mobile divisions performed in Barbarossa.

As we all know, the real BARBAROSSA failed. It failed dismally. Moreover, TheMarcksPlan himself has been at pains to explain part (according to his understanding) of the reason why it failed: "leakage" of Red Army forces from the encirclement operations.

So, does this fantasy scenario change the field commanders and their tactics so that "leakage" is somehow prevented? If so, which commanders, what tactics, and evidence of the efficacy would be appreciated. If not, it seems unlikely that adding another pantser group will make a game changing difference. Some "factual value" added to the fantasy scenario would be appreciated.

[ljadw]

I presume that you know who is Volker Berghahn. In 2004 he called Lost Victories totally unreliable .
You know who is Jürgen Förster ? In 1998 he wrote that people as Manstein and Westphal claimed in their memoirs that the WM was a professional, apolitical force who were victims ( not followers ) of Hitler and that MOST GERMANS ( my emphasis ) accepted for too long at face value these self-serving claims .
And Robert Citino ?He said that Manstein defended his reputation and generalship and hided his participation in war crimes and blamed others for everything that went wrong .
These three well-known historians have debunked the memoirs of Manstein,which were unreliable, full of self-serving claims and hided his participation in war crimes ,but blamed the others for what went wrong .
And Förster said that most Germans believed what Manstein was saying .
The memorts from Halder and Guderian were at the same level ,if not lower .
Of course : it was a conspiracy .

This is a nonsensical response that doesn't address the fact that you invented things earlier about the contents of two memoirs and the German officer reports. Do you realize that the Raus memoirs/reports are heavy broken down and analyzed in "Endgame at Stalingrad" Glantz? For an officer's memory it is clear that, despite the errors, it generally matched what happened. Memoirs aren't history, they are just opinions from fading memories.
Mellanthin, Raus, Manstein, Guderian's opinions (via memoir or report) are frequently noted in unit and operational histories, whenever appropriate.

One would wonder if you actually read any the books that you collect crib notes on, and then you repost them over and over again for the purpose of rhetorical debates. Lost Victories/Panzer Operations/Panzer Battles/Panzer Leader do not have contents that display biblical power. They are memoirs in troop command. There is in fact very little that is political in the memoirs, they are military in nature. People have personal responsibility in what they choose to believe in. The conspiracy theory doesn't match the contents if you actually READ the books. You post too much misinformation in forums.

Your response has nothing substantive except status dropping. I couldn't care less about what a generalist author believes it unless I examine it first. They are certainly far less knowledgeable than I in certain areas and good AHF posters. I am aware of the other low quality conspiracy theories that you believe in like you believe in Deep State, Clinton, Marxist, etc.. with similarly small amount of evidence.

I repeat, the truth is that the contents of the memoirs do not match these conspiracy theory descriptions and neither do the German officer reports for the US historical division. You, being not a student of the Eastern Front besides your fixation on a narrow range of questions didn't pick up it.

Halder, Guderian and Manstein were defeated generals .
What do defeated generals ? They write books to blame everyone else for the defeats . Gamelin.also a defeated general,did the same thing in ''Servir''.
Hitler was dead and thus the ideal scape-goat:as he was responsible for Auschwitz, he could be blamed also for the defeat .
Halder transformed the Historical Division in a propaganda machine to blame Hitler for the defeat and to innocent the WM for the Holocaust .
Guderian did the same and blamed the dead Kluge . Nice, attacking some one who can 't defend himself.
Manstein did also the same : it was always the fault of Hitler . If only Hitler had listen to him .And Manstein was hiding his role in the Holocaust : he did send 2000 men to the Crimea to help the SS into killing the Jews .Halder and Guderian also were hiding their role in the Holocaust .
After WWI, the generals blamed Moltke for the defeat ( Moltke was dead and thus the ideal scape-goat) and denied that Germany had started a war of aggression .
After WWII,the German generals had even the guts to say that the allies were responsible for the Holocaust,because of Munich and because they did not start a big offensive against Germany in September 1939 .

[David Thompson]

ljadw -- You wrote:

Halder, Guderian and Manstein were defeated generals .
What do defeated generals ? They write books to blame everyone else for the defeats . Gamelin.also a defeated general,did the same thing in ''Servir''.
Hitler was dead and thus the ideal scape-goat:as he was responsible for Auschwitz, he could be blamed also for the defeat .
Halder transformed the Historical Division in a propaganda machine to blame Hitler for the defeat and to innocent the WM for the Holocaust .
Guderian did the same and blamed the dead Kluge . Nice, attacking some one who can 't defend himself.
Manstein did also the same : it was always the fault of Hitler . If only Hitler had listen to him .And Manstein was hiding his role in the Holocaust : he did send 2000 men to the Crimea to help the SS into killing the Jews .Halder and Guderian also were hiding their role in the Holocaust .
After WWI, the generals blamed Moltke for the defeat ( Moltke was dead and thus the ideal scape-goat) and denied that Germany had started a war of aggression .
After WWII,the German generals had even the guts to say that the allies were responsible for the Holocaust,because of Munich and because they did not start a big offensive against Germany in September 1939 .

Proof please, to support your very broad factual claims. The forum rules provide:

If a poster raises a question about the events, other posters may answer the question with evidence. If a poster stops asking questions and begins to express a point of view, he then becomes an advocate for that viewpoint. When a person becomes an advocate, he has the burden of providing evidence for his point of view. If he has no evidence, or doesn't provide it when asked, it is reasonable for the reader to conclude that his opinion or viewpoint is uninformed and may fairly be discounted or rejected.

Undocumented claims undercut the research purposes of this section of the forum. Consequently, it is required that proof be posted along with a claim. The main reason is that proof, evidence, facts, etc. improve the quality of discussions and information. A second reason is that inflammatory, groundless posts and threads attack, and do not promote, the scholarly purpose of this section of the forum.

This requirement applies to each specific claim. In the past, some posters have attempted to evade the proof requirement by resort to the following tactics, none of which are acceptable here:

A general reference to a website, or a book without page references; citations or links to racist websites; generalized citations to book reviews; and citations to unsourced, secondary articles or opinions.

Noncomplying posts are subject to deletion after warning.

app.php/rules

Consider this your warning.

[David Thompson]

A post from TheMarcksPlan, containing a disparaging personal comment about another poster, was removed pursuant to forum rules and prior thread warnings.

[SpicyJuan]

A post from TheMarcksPlan, containing a disparaging personal comment about another poster, was removed pursuant to forum rules and prior thread warnings.

As a neutral observer in this thread, TheMarcksPlan is right about this. Posts in the “what-if” section that complain about alternate history in general and shout “speculation!” at everything are just as useless as posts that don’t source anything, likely even worse. Deleting his suggestion is entirely unhelpful, especially if such comments are left undeleted.

[Terry Duncan]

A post from TheMarcksPlan, containing a disparaging personal comment about another poster, was removed pursuant to forum rules and prior thread warnings.

As a neutral observer in this thread, TheMarcksPlan is right about this. Posts in the “what-if” section that complain about alternate history in general and shout “speculation!” at everything are just as useless as posts that don’t source anything, likely even worse. Deleting his suggestion is entirely unhelpful, especially if such comments are left undeleted.

If a poster makes a claim then it is up to them to support such a claim with evidence in some form, not just the assertion that it would work. However, the major problem comes from when people start to make personal comments, insulting the person rather than refuting the idea put forward. That is strictly discouraged. Remember, anything that is asseted without evidence can be refuted without evidence. If I say 'Germany would have won if Hitler stood in the front line' then it is up to me to explain why I believe this, and to provide any evidence that supports it. Other posters can respond that my idea is silly by pointing out the likelyhood of the head of state being killed in such a position. What they cannot say is 'this is a stupid idea and you are retarded for saying it'.

Also, it is rather bad form, not to mention risky, to openly question moderation staff. If you wish to raise a point you can always do so via PM. On pretty much all sites this is how things work.

[TheMarcksPlan]

If I say 'Germany would have won if Hitler stood in the front line' then it is up to me to explain why I believe this, and to provide any evidence that supports it. Other posters can respond that my idea is silly by pointing out the likelyhood of the head of state being killed in such a position. What they cannot say is 'this is a stupid idea and you are retarded for saying it'.

This is besides the point that I was making and which which Spicy Juan seems to agree.
In my version of your example, someone has responded to your frontline-Hitler idea with "that's speculative."
Well yeah duh, that's speculative. But that's kind of the point of alternate history.
The question isn't whether it's speculative; it's whether the speculative path is intelligent/informed.

I don't object to people raising valid critiques of my ATL; I object to them saying "that's speculative."
Individuals should either make a substantive argument or not clog the forum with useless comments like "that's speculative."

Also, it is rather bad form, not to mention risky, to openly question moderation staff. If you wish to raise a point you can always do so via PM.

I think there's huge utility in the community being able to ask for explanation of a ruling. For this very reason, countries with functioning judiciaries don't merely announce a ruling, they provide a reasoned opinion explaining rulings. This lends legitimacy to the ruling itself, enables observers to conform their behavior to the principles articulated in the ruling, and enables those who wish to challenge the ruling before a higher tribunal on the grounds stated in the ruling (unless it's the supreme court). No system of rules is or will ever be sufficiently detailed to eliminate the need to explain the application of rules to particular cases.

[David Thompson]

SpicyJuan -- TheMarcksPlan's comment was removed because it made a disparaging personal remark about another forum member, not because it was otherwise apt. Our members have a responsibility to conform their posts to the forum rules, which are posted for all to see at app.php/rules. These rules have been there for many years.

[TheMarcksPlan]

Whether or not an additional Panzergruppe changes that...or simply creates more penetrations unsupported by infantry, so not sustainable...is speculation.

Richard,
Please make a substantive argument for why Germany would fail to encircle Southwest Front given an extra panzer army during the border battles.
Otherwise, you should refrain from commenting.
To say my assertion is "speculative" is irrelevant in the context of a subforum devoted to speculation about how history could have gone differently.
Such comments needlessly clog this forum and add nothing to the discussion.

[David Thompson]

TheMarcksPlan -- It is not for you to tell another forum member to refrain from commenting in a discussion, or to set conditions on their right to post, or to claim who or what clogs the forum. You are a guest here, just as Mr. Anderson is. Please keep that in mind when posting.

[TheMarcksPlan]

RichardAnderson is free to post as much as he likes. I'm not claiming any authority; I'm stating a normative principle. I assume there's nothing wrong with saying, "You should provide evidence or you shouldn't post". That's just the rules.
"You should provide an argument and evidence or you shouldn't post" seems in the same vein.