Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire WW2 Russian vet. recalls atrocities by his soldiers -

Perhaps so. FDR was a Socialist before he aligned with the tyrant/butcher Stalin and was already chipping away at the foundations of America before WWII came along.

I know it’s somewhat of a colloquial term, but everyone knows what it means.





Whoops:

"The term had appeared in 1935, in a German military periodical Deutsche Wehr (German Defence), in connection to quick or lightning warfare." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg (citing Frieser, Karl-Heinz (2005). The Blitzkrieg Legend: The 1940 Campaign in the West [Blitzkrieg-legende: der westfeldzug 1940]. trans. J. T. Greenwood. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-59114-294-2).

Dumbass Nazi.

FDR came along at exactly the right time, as we were neck deep in the Great Depression. Growing up, I heard all the stories about it from the folks that lived through it, and it didn't affect the people who lived on a farm near as much as those in the cities. Roosevelt was able to convince the masses that it was his policies that brought them out of the depression, and he became very popular.........despite the fact that many of his policies were socialist in nature, and designed to make people become wards of the government. We see that now, whereas those who were living at that time, and hit not by the Great Depression, but by WW2, mostly viewed FDR as something of a savior.

After listening to first hand accounts of coming into Dachau and seeing, hearing, and smelling the worst of humanity, and then dealing with SS guards who claimed innocence, and local citizens who claimed ignorance, I learned that reading a book cannot fully capture the experience or explain the response.

Another third-grader.

Because so many things we “know” about it simply aren’t true.

I was hoping that you'd be more specific. What are the myths you speak of and what parts of the modern world are crumbling because of the myths being destroyed? Genuinely curious.

Where does the term 'Blitzkrieg' appear in any
Nazi top brass official military war effort documentaton
or any WW2 training manuals?

1935 Deutsche Wehr periodical you cite doesnt
speak of the term being associated with combination
of armor, mechanised infantry and air power of WW2,
rather it is in reference to WW1.

I never said it was in common usage in the German military. There was, however, at least, one "appearance is in 1938, in the 'Militär-Wochenblatt,' where Blitzkrieg is defined as a 'strategic attack,' carried out by operational use of tanks, air force, and airborne troops." https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/blitzkrieg

I was using it for a post-war English-speaking audience, where the term has a common acceptance and understanding.

If you guys want to think it's juvenile to use that term, go ahead, but everyone understood what I meant.

Why then did you cite 1935 Deutsche Wehr considering
it does not refer to Blitzkrieg as the post WW2 English-
speaking audience understands it ..?

'Cause Nazi man dared me to find a pre-war German source using that phrase. So, I did.

Interesting that Hitler's idea of 'Blitzkrieg' in Russia was
different to that of Gen.Hans Guderian.

Hitler preferred the strategic method of continuing
to rapidly encircle and destroy Soviet armies , whereas
Guderian though such was slowing progress down
and wanted to apply the tactic of keep pushing hard
and fast to his intended goal, for he believed Hitler's
approach to "lightning war" still gave Soviets too
much advantage or time to prepare and the Germans
had become predictable to Germanies disadvantage.

Both approaches had their difficulties.

They Germans had to supply by rail over such vast distances. If they didn’t liquidate the pockets, they couldn’t convert the rail to the Russian gauge and deliver supplies to the forward troop. I think Hitler’s view was more strategically, rather than operationally, flawed.

After taking Smolensk in August, there were only 45 poorly trained, poorly equipped Soviet divisions in and in front of Moscow.

In October, after the Ukraine sideshow:

There were twice as many;
They were much better entrenched/fortified;
There were 4-1/2 fewer hours of daylight per day for the Luftwaffe to exhibit its air supremacy and support the ground troops;
The mud was coming soon;
The 10 more Siberian divisions were arriving shortly;
The amount of time before severe winter hit was half as long;
Etc. …

I think the Germans likely would have taken Moscow if it had been their primary focus, as Guderian and Manstein preferred. I think the psychological, economic, transportation, and military effects of that blow may have been too much to sustain significant Soviet resistance thereafter.

BTW, IMO, if Germany wasn't being governed by ideological motives, their best chance for a real win, assuming their historical successes up to July 1940 were in hand with the fall of most of northern and western Europe, was to:

Compel Franco either by force or $$$ to allow transit of German troops across Spain;
Easily take Gibraltar;
Take Malta;
Send and supply as many troops as possible to Libya;
Take the Suez; and
Impede or take the Middle East.

Pretty much war-over at that point.
Germany wouldn't have had to maintain all those troops in the occupied Balkans.
Germany and Italy would not have needed to defend the Med any further.
Britain would lose a ton of resources from the Middle East and Africa.
The Italian Navy (as bad as it was) could be moved to the Atlantic.
No threat to the Ploesti oilfields.
Lots of oil from the Middle East.
Italian troops could be used to defend the French coast, a threat that would not materialize for years anyway.
Britain would be economically reduced, and moving resources from Asia would have taken much longer around the Cape.
Almost the entire weight of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe could be deployed to the Soviet target, and the Caucasus could be invaded from the south.

JMO.

The Germans had to get the oil fields in the other side of Stalingrad...
But they got into a grudge match over Stalingrad when they should have focused on the oil..

True. They could have cut the Volga supply route without taking Stalingrad. But I think the war already had turned by then. If they didn't knock the Russians pretty much out in 1941, they were likely doomed--just a matter of time. Hitler admitted to several, including Finland's Mannerheim, by 1943 that he never would have invaded the USSR if he had known the true extent of their military and economic resources.

The oil fields were a strategic acquisition and
not necessarily a means by which to feed the
immediate critical fuel demands of the German
Army...the fuel shortage that hampered progress
for the German army in the east was due to poor
logistics .. they had the gasoline they needed to
effectively fuel the army , but it was locked up in
some major and prolonged railroad log jams.

Another issue was shortage of supply of grease,
which meant premature wear of tracked vehicles
which means more frequent repair/replacement
down time and need of more spares.

He's proven his own ignorance in his posts. It honestly reminds me of the media talking about hi capacity clips loaded with cop killer bullets. Real english words sure...but meaningless all the same and made up. But hey...we all know what they are talking about.

I do believe what our resident 3rd grade military scholar is referring to as a "blitzkrieg" is the combined Prussian doctrine of Bewegungskrieg culminating in Kesselschlacht.

Perhaps he can enlighten us further. He may just be talking about santa's reindeer blitzen. I won't wait around to find out lol

Good night all...or shall i say gute nacht

Ok Ok one last thought. As i see it...by 1942 the Wehrmacht was no longer capable of operations along the entire russian front and chose to pursue a drive to the oil fields...case blue. This was done in desperation imho. They had to do something...they couldn't build a wall and waif for Ivan. While they held strong positions in the east it was pretty clear to many in the OKH that they were in a very weak position in the theatre as a whole. They simply had bitten off more than they could chew. The soviet army 2.0 had proven to be a much more professional force and the krauts knew it. It was all over but the hurting as history came to show. To be fair i have the benefit of looking back at history and they did not. Little in war is a foregone conclusion as they had proven earlier in the west. The OKH felt they fought the soviets to a draw in Stalingrad...at least early on....only to be surrounded and destroyed. Their intel was horrible to say the least. They underestimated soviet strength by entire army groups.

Last but not least I think its safe to say that even if operations had gone perfectly the germans were never going to take an intact oil field. The ones they did get were set ablaze and the krauts never got a barrel from them.

I think the only chance they honestly ever had was to force capitulation in 41. Even taking Moscow wouldn't have guaranteed that though. Napolian took moscow and that didn't get him far.

It would have taken the Japs engaging the russians simoatainisly in Manchuria...and even then I still don't know.


The biggest enemy of germany was hitlers BS ideology. That said...the prussian officer corps certainly went along with him contrary to popular belief. By and large they were all for the invasion of poland and latter operation barbarossa.

So many what ifs and thoughts about how germany could have one. The reality is that they underestimated the soviets...the only chance was to win quick and dirty and they didn't get it done in the initial drive. Once that sputtered out...they had no chance other than developing an atomic weapon. Had the war drawn out a couple years longer (maybe a win at kursk helps here) God only knows.

I know this...im damn happy the germans didn't develop the bomb first.

ok...seriously last post here. Sorry for being a jerk...especially to you marinehawk. It was all meant in good fun...honestly.

Everyone have a good night and good rest of the week.