Germany's Best Victory

German campaigns and battles 1919-1945.

Moderator: sniper1shot

sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge » Wed Sep 13, 2006 4:42 am

Hi Pirx,

The Germans and Romanians managed to evacuate most of their Crimea garrison in April-May 1944. However, the Russians lost the great majority of the forces they committed to the Crimea in 1941-42. (Remember, apart from Sevastopol, they also lost two armies in the Kerch Peninsula). I think if you do more number crunching on your calculator you will find that Soviet losses in the Crimea were several times higher than those of the Germans.

Crimean partisans were largely countered by Romanian troops, not Germans, and they were still too weak in April 1944 to prevent the Germans and Romanians withdrawing into the Sevastopol perimeter successfully. Soviet partisan successes are much over-hyped.

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
Igorn
Associate
Posts: 818
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia
Contact:

Re: Victory

Post by Igorn » Wed Sep 13, 2006 5:02 am

Gerst wrote:In July 1942, we could have deployed the 11th Army into southern Russia and kicked some real Bolshevik "Arsch!" Too bad we had an Austrian corporal in charge of our army!
Can you pls. define "we"?

Best Regards from Russia,
Igor

User avatar
Gerst
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas

The meaning of "we"

Post by Gerst » Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:22 am

Whenever I discuss WW II, I think of myself as a German, since I was born there in 1944 and my father and his brothers all served. My mother had only sisters. They served as teachers and one worked for Admiral Doenitz.

From 1951 to 1956 "we" means Canadians. After that, "we" became Americans, but I also revert to "we" when discussing Europe because I still think of myself as a European.

Sorry about the "butt kick" remark my friend. You guys did a bit of that yourselves! No disrespect intended.

All the best from Texas,

Gerst

User avatar
Gerst
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas

Tartars in the Crimea

Post by Gerst » Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:27 am

[Crimean partisans were largely countered by Romanian troops, not Germans, and they were still too weak in April 1944 to prevent the Germans and Romanians withdrawing into the Sevastopol perimeter successfully. Soviet partisan successes are much over-hyped.]

In my research of the capture of the Crimea, I read accounts of Tartars who were used as security forces and they also fought against Russian partisians in the mountains of the Crmea. My father said (and has photos)
of Tartar women with bread and salt and dance troupes entertaining the Germans as liberators, not conquerors. How common was this in 1942?

Gerst

sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge » Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:48 am

Hi Gerst,

True.

However, the main forces used were 1st and 4th Romanian Mountain Divisions in 1942-43. In 1943-44 2nd and 3rd Romanian Mountain Divisions were also used. The Romanians tended to be used in the Yaila Mountains, which provided the Partisans with their best cover. The Slovak 1st Infantry Division was also used in mid 1943 in the flat north of the Crimea, but experienced very little resistance.

The local forces such as the Tartars were not numerous or well equipped by comparison. The Crimean Tartars welcomed the Germans so openly that Stalin had the entire population sent into internal exile when the peninsula was recaptured. They were replaced with Russian settlers and not allowed back for decades. This has contributed to the current anomally whereby although the Crimea is part of the Ukraine, most of its population is Russian.

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
von_noobie
Associate
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:47 am
Location: victoria

Post by von_noobie » Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:24 pm

Dunkirk wasnt the only port the Germans held until the end of the war, There was about half a dozen ports that held out until the war ended.

User avatar
Igorn
Associate
Posts: 818
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia
Contact:

Post by Igorn » Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:25 am

sid guttridge wrote:This has contributed to the current anomally whereby although the Crimea is part of the Ukraine, most of its population is Russian.
Hi Sid, let's be clear that historically Crimia never belonged to Ukraine and ethnic Ukrainian population never exceeded 1-2% of Crimea population. Russia throughout its history was engaged in many wars with Tartars (anchestors of Mongols who invaded some Russian territories in 13,14 and 15th centuries)and Turkey (sometimes supported by England) in 18th and 19th centuary to win-back Crimea and set up Sevastopol as the main base of the Black Sea fleet. Needless to say that Ukraine at that times part of Russian Empire had nothing to do with Russian Army and Russian Fleet victories in Crimean Wars. It was only because of ex-Soviet leader Nikita Khruchev (ethnic Ukrainian) who decided to transfer Crimea from Russian Republic of USSR to Ukrainian Republic of USSR that Crimea today turned out to be part of Ukraine. Another person who was involved in this affair is Boris Eltsin who did not demand Crimea back to Russia in 1991 when USSR was dissolved and independent Ukraine was established.

Best Regards from Russia,
Igor

User avatar
Igorn
Associate
Posts: 818
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia
Contact:

Re: The meaning of "we"

Post by Igorn » Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:43 am

Gerst wrote:Whenever I discuss WW II, I think of myself as a German, since I was born there in 1944 and my father and his brothers all served. My mother had only sisters. They served as teachers and one worked for Admiral Doenitz.

From 1951 to 1956 "we" means Canadians. After that, "we" became Americans, but I also revert to "we" when discussing Europe because I still think of myself as a European.

Sorry about the "butt kick" remark my friend. You guys did a bit of that yourselves! No disrespect intended.

All the best from Texas,

Gerst
Gerst, Now I see what you meant by "we" and your applogies for "we kicked some real Bolshevik "Arsch!"" are taken. I don't think it is productive to talk in these terms since Russians also kicked some real Nazi Arsch! in 1943-1945 and effectively put an end to Adolf Hitler 'Third Reich". No hard feelings since personally I have a high respect for a German soldier who was probably the most dangerous opponent of the Russian soldier in Russian history. That's why the defeat of such a strong enemy in WW2 is especially honorable. I wish you all the best!

Best Regards from Russia,
Igor

sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge » Fri Sep 15, 2006 1:37 am

Hi Igorn,

Your clarification agrees pretty much with what I thought, which is why my earlier post was carefully phrased in the way it was. The Crimea was transferred to the Ukraine by internal Soviet decree in the comparitively recent past. The USSR's successor states got their indepedence on the basis of the existing administrative status quo in 1990. (Africa had the same understanding about the acceptance of inherited colonal boundaries after independence). This has led to a number of ethnic anomales, of which the Crimea is just one.

(It is perhaps also worth mentioning that because the Ukraine already had a seat in the UN, its possession of the Crimea was already internationally recognised before 1990.)

Cheers,

Sid.

sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge » Fri Sep 15, 2006 1:55 am

Hi TC,

Dunkirk in 1944-45 was hardly a German victory. It was the debris of a German defeat and a wasteful strategic miscalculation by Hitler that the Western Allies needed the use of more Atlantic and Channel ports than they did. As a result approaching 100,000 German troops were kept bottled until the end of the war by ill-armed and ill-equipped French FFI and other secondary forces not usable on the main battlefront.

The Allies just bypassed Dunkirk, leaving the understrength Czech Brigade to cover it. There was no general assualt. The Czech Brigade could not be used on a main battlefront because it was understrength. Indeed, its major source of new recruits was desertions via Switzerland from the Czech and Slovak labour battalions being use by the Germans in Italy. In effect, the German armed forces provided not only the besieged manpower at Dunkirk, but much of the the manpower of the besiegers as well!

The German garrison at Dunkirk performed stoically in an isolated position, but it was never really put to the test. In WWI the Germans used to describe the Allied Salonika Beachhead as the largest POW camp for which they had to provide guards. In 1944-45 the Allies could have made the same joke about Dunkirk and the Atlantic fortresses to its south.

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
Igorn
Associate
Posts: 818
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia
Contact:

Post by Igorn » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:02 am

sid guttridge wrote:It is perhaps also worth mentioning that because the Ukraine already had a seat in the UN
This was a trick made up by Stalin to increase Soviet influence in the UN. Don't be mislead by this fact since in Soviet times Ukraine (as well as other Republics of USSR) didn't get any political independance and all decisions were taken in Moscow.

Best Regards from Russia,
Igor

sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:09 am

Hi Igorn,

We in the West know that very well.

This issue is an illustation that Russia didn't simply gain from its dominance of the USSR. It could also be a loser.

Cheers,

Sid.

Pirx
Associate
Posts: 975
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 7:46 am
Location: UK/Poland

Post by Pirx » Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:07 am

sid guttridge wrote:Hi Igorn,

We in the West know that very well.

This issue is an illustation that Russia didn't simply gain from its dominance of the USSR. It could also be a loser.

Cheers,

Sid.
I'm happy that You know that, but most "West" people do not know much about history and presence of Eastern Europe. For many of them USSR = Russia, and Russian = communist :?
amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas

User avatar
Alex Coles
Associate
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:50 am
Location: England

Post by Alex Coles » Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:53 pm

For most people Germans in the 1939-1945 period are classed as Nazis too.
Alex

(Also known as 17 SS)

sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:29 am

Hi 17SSPG,

If so, them most people are ill informed. Party membership was about 5-7% of the population.

However, Nazi penetration of the popular consciousness went rather deeper. Whether they were card-carrying Nazis or not, the great majority of Germans were seduced by their own patriotism to serve the Nazi cause. The Nazis exploited the nationalism of the great bulk of the German population to further their own ends. Thereby Nazism did Germany's national reputation untold damage.

Most Germans were not very different from, say, Britons. It was their Nazi regime that was markedly different in character.

The subtleties of the difference between Nazism and German Nationalism are understandably too obscure for most of the non-specialist population today.

However, in fairness, I don't think you will find in any books with serious historical pretensions anything as simplistic as "all Germans were Nazis". (Not even in Goldhagen, before that gets raised). Whether the news media and entertainment industry are as careful is another matter, and they are more influential in forming popular prejudices.

Cheers,

Sid.

Post Reply