Comments by "Not Today" (@nottoday3817) on "4th and 5th Battles of the Courland Pocket 1944 | WW2 BATTLESTORM History Documentary Part 10" video.
-
The nature of warfare. Generally, we can see that everyone, Soviets, UK, US (And france lost their whole country) had a big hard time fighting the Germans, especially when the Germans were on the Defensive. If I could sum things up, Germans were shit on strategic level, but very good on Tactical level. Because they were very good on Tactical level, when it comes to defensive (which is 90% tactics, since the only strategy is 'Hold on or Get back to point X'-so simple) they were in their advantage. And it is true. German defensive doctrine was the best in the war. This defensive doctrine was even the 2nd strongest point of the 'blitzkrieg'. The panzers and mobile formations could break through, but it was the infantry and supports that would dig around encircled enemy who would win the day as the enemy units would be unable to break out. Soo, to the basics, when it comes to tactical level, there is something that TIK always said: The odds are always for the one defending [ on TACTICAL LEVEL-cannot stress that enough]. This explains why almost everyone suffered great loses against the germans and even the combined British-US forces( so 2 world empires) thought the Germans were so hard despite facing a joke compared to what the Soviets had thrown at them.
Now, for why the soviets suffered so dearly compared to others. 2 factors.
1. As pointed out at the end of my last paragraph: they had to face more germans. TIK gives a ratio of 3 or 4:1 for the guy on the tactical offensive to be able to breach the defenders sucessfully. When the defender has a lot of manpower and equipment, of course it's going to be more effective than an army much smaller (like the one faced by US and UK) and the one on the offensive would suffer more.
2. Morale/pressure. If we take a look at a map, UK and US were never really threatened by Germany. UK had only one 'moment' of fear: the battle for Britain and especially the Blitz. Comparing the affected area with the whole British Empire (1/4 of the world) and considering the advantage of the defender suited them quite nicely and, even more, that none of their territories was actually invaded, the Battle of Britain had little effect on the British effort and it's a total joke compared to what some German, Romanian and especially soviet cities, including Leningrad(2nd biggest and cultural capital) suffered. However, Britain still regards it one of the most devastating and traumatising events in their history. Now, we move on the other side of the continent: USSR. The most populated areas under siege or captured, main food supply (Ukraine) captured, major deposits of Strategic Resources (Iron, Oil, coal in Ukraine/Donbass, Caucasus etc.) major cities in Rubble and enemy hands (Kiev, Kharkov, Sevastopol) and the whole masterplan Ost (slavery and extermination) as well as rapes and other athrocities hard to describe are the main things on any Soviet citizen's mind. From Soldier to High command, everyone knew they had to push the germans back. And do that FAST. The longer they would wait, the more the civillians in the captured territories would have to suffer. That's for the regular folk. When it comes to the high command, they also were thinking about how the captured territories would help their enemies. Not only that, but as war moved on, high command would also start worrying about other nations as well, like if the war drags on for too long, the "Western Allies" could pull a 180(like they did in 1918) and attack them when they saw it fit. Overall, the whole point of this: the soviets HAD TO ATTACK. They felt they HAD TO ATTACK from day one of Barbarossa. Meanwhile, the Americans and Brits simply took their time. There was nothing for them to rush for. The soviets were keeping most of the german troops in check, they were mostly on the defensive.
Overall, combining the 2 reasons: The Eastern front was a ticking time bomb for the soviets who HAD TO, for whom it was imperatory to, attack and win as fast as possible, an attack which would pit them against the best and most numerous german formations who most often had the advantages of a good defensive position. Meanwhile, the Western Allies faced a much smaller and ill equiped enemy and, since they were not pressured by anything, could take their time planning each of their moves to minimise casualities
5
-
Hmm, Regarding your questions about wether Soviets were burning through German supplies or they were rubbish.. I might make a larger comment, but to give a 'shortish answer' (just the size of War and Peace novel :) )
Why nobody thinks both ideeas can have some part of their truth?
I mean, the fact that the soviets were pulling divisions from Courtland I believe clearly shows that there was a shift in priorities.
And it would make sense for them to keep the germans busy there as not to allow them to reinforce the Central European front (Vienna-Berlin). This is because both Stalin and Churchil knew that the other side would try to monopolise the capture of the capital to their best. Sporadic offensives would prevent the germans from forming a possible breakway attempt or organise a retreat for the fear of not getting hit from the back.
However, I feel like they could do a lot better, tactically and strategically. Like in the 2nd, 3rd 4th 5th, the main direction was westwards (to liapaja), from center to west and from east to center. This makes some strategic sense if you are an optimist. You go westwards, try to take or surround Liapaja and establish a solid defensive line. This means that the germans can no longer evacuate so the 'grind through german supplies' would work as the germans would desperately throw themselves away to re-establish supply lines or straightaway suffer a morale breakdown and surrender. However, this meant that the soviets would face the strongest german resistance and would throw away their biggest advantage: the ability to concentrate forces. I would not call them rubbish, but after 2-3 battles with the same stagnating result and heavy losses, even for the sake of having some fun a better commander would have changed tactics, perhaps not attacking Liapaja from east, but from south, or rather ignore the port completely and push straight north along the eastern coastline. Of course there can be various explainations to why this was not done. apart from the commanders being bad, there might be the ideea of the soviets trying to gain access to the german U-boats in Courtland.
As for Donitz. Well, I cannot give a clear answer as I never read Donitz' memoirs and conisdering my uni I might never have time to give it the proper analysis it deserves. The thing is, the quote in the memoirs can be made in the hindsight, while the one at the consultations with Hitler could be made 'in hot blood'. Since we do not have clear context, perhaps Donitz was asked to give an answer to the question 'Hey, can we actually pull this off'? And his answer would be like the one from Kurowski: 'Well, if we jeopardise our entire global strategy, literally gambling every resource we have on some units we have no ideea if they would be useful and assuming the enemy would not take advantage of our situation, then we have a chance of pulling off another France 1940'
3
-
@marianocabrera7290 and @Jamie Strode Well, the effect on overall war is hard to quantify.
Since we are dealing with history here, not with 'what if' wehraboo stuff, I can state some of the clear effects it had:
1. Freed up Italian forces which would be later used in Africa and, more importantly, BARBAROSSA (since you asked for effect on that as well).
2. Closed the Balkan Front and, effectively, the whole Mediteranean Sea. Greece was an ally of Britain, now that Italy was at war with Britain, it would not be unreasonable to think that Britain would use it's Middle east forces to ship troops into Greece and from Greece advance into Yugoslavia and Italy. Once they gained a foothold outside Greece, they could then use it to strike against Germany. Furthermore, by moving contingents of the airforce there, they closed the Mediteranean Sea to British Warships. So UK could not deploy a large fleet through the Suez Canal and attempt to take on Italy.
3. Perhaps it gave a push to other Centra-Eastern European nations to join the war against USSR, nations like Bulgaria and definetly Romania
2
-
2
-
1
-
1