Books on the Eastern Front of WW2

[Nick]

This then influenced and fenced them in to a movement and finally a war machine that, especially in the East, killed with vigour and vehemence and no mercy. For most then it was probably right for Germany and therefore right for them. Some were probably very uncomfortable and even disagreed with policies and local unit decisions to murder,

But there's a difference - subtle, at times, I admit - between war to the knife on the battlefield and the enslavement and slaughter of civilians behind the lines. Over forty thousand death camps and ghettoes is not just an abberation of a few, misguided lunatics; it simply cannot be done without the willing participation of the population as a whole.

As for being "right for Germany," you have to wonder a bit. The German General Staff, despite all its later protestations, allowed itself to be bought off and stayed bought. Somehow, few of these memoirs ever actually manage to point that out.

Given the ill-treatment of non-combatants, with the active complicity of the army, along with the over-forty-thousand cmaps, it's pretty difficult to swallow the ever-prevalent point of view that people didn't know what was going on and, in fact, participated in it (even if only with a wink). Claiming that a couple of SS officers are off the hook (questionable in itself) is the exception that proves the rule

As I have gotten older, I have increasingly questioned why the German Army in WW II continues to maintain its "cool factor."

<>

Ironic, don't you think, since Steiner was the creator of the SS Wiking Division, a charming little group of choirboys (I would say to ask the folks in the Ukraine about this but there probably aren't any left)

As I've gotten older, I've discovered that my 30+ years of studying World War II has resulted in more questions than answers as new information results in a healthy supply of new books each month (many of them refuting the work of other "experts")

Those of us senior citizens (sadly, I am one) have been indoctrinated lo these many years by the cold-war theories proposed by the German survivors. The Germans weren't beaten, they were simply swamped by overwhelming manpower and material. What we read often wasn't written by "experts" so much as apologists, taking advantage of the Cold War zeitgeist. (Sadly, there's still a lot of this, today) As if the Soviets (in this instance) had little to do with it. Even back in the 60's and 70's, there were some voices in the wilderness who were pointing out the vaccuity of this viewpoint and, thankfully, in the past decade or so, there have been a number of works that have debunked these Cold War myths.

[Dachokie]

Nick wrote: " I have increasingly questioned why the German Army in WW II continues to maintain its 'cool factor'..."

A Marine buddy of mine gave me a plausible answer to that years ago and it made sense ...

A lot of it has to do with the media's portrayal over the years. Starting with LIFE magazine, who frequently referred to them as "Hitler's Supermen", they have been given iconic status as a military "machine" rather than a group of soldiers. The infinite pictures of them marching in order, the spartan uniforms, Germany's military culture, the iconic helmets (which is the basis for today's US helmets) and the weaponry. Compare the images of Germans to all the other armies they fought and for the most part it comes across as professional soldiers vs. citizen soldiers. They dressed and acted the part of a disciplined, dedicated military machine (much like the US Marine Corps of today, in my opinion). I also think that many separate the actual combat from the atrocities ... from a combat standpoint, while eventually beaten into oblivion, they set the standard for modern warfare and were an effective and deadly fighting force even in retreat. The weaponry is another issue all together: Tigers, Panthers, ME109, FW190, ME262, V1, V2, MP40, STG44, P08, P38 ...

I think when you look at history, warriors (evil or not) stand out ... WWII Wehrmacht was the 20th century version of Roman Legions, Spartans or Vikings.

Frequently it seems the media's attempt to demonize or create monsters only stirs people's fascination with the subject: Charles Manson comes to mind.

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

This is an interesting discussion. Nick I'm not disagreeing as I don't buy the wholesale "didn't know" theory either, having read a number of wider histories on the Third Reich, and importantly for my own views, lived and made friends in Germany.

I think the complexity for me is on two levels: personal knowledge/experience and one's ability to resist/refuse.

How much did individuals know? This I think would depend to an extent on their work, politics and position in society and location in the country.

The second is what they experienced both before and during the war (including expelling Jews from institutions, the press, party membership and even for example moving into a house that was once occupied and furnished with another family's belongings and suddenly was given to you).

One only needs to read Klemperer to understand the visibility to the ordinary populace from 1933 onwards as laws and behaviours changed that things were happening.

Finally - and the challenge to us all in similar circumstances - even if you knew what was being done what could one reasonably could do to refuse/resist an evil regime such as this.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Some excellent observations and comments being made by everyone here. I tend to agree with most of what is being said. I have always had a fascination with the Waffen SS since I joined the Army in 1978. Was it because they are recognised as one of the elite fighting forces of WW2 and many of the books that came out in the 1950-70's tend to concentrate just on their fighting record?

I have always looked at the Waffen SS and the concentration camp guards as two different areas under the one umbrella organisation which they were, however that does not in anyway, change the fact that the Waffen SS did commit some horrendous crimes during the war.

I tend to agree with what Dachokie and Geevee mentioned in that the Waffen SS was an elite formation not unlike the Roman Praetorian Guard and the weapons that Germany developed were in many cases outstanding. The Esprit de corps of their units was something that many other countries aspired to. However having said this, nothing excuses their conduct in relation to the many war crimes committed and also this is just my personal opinion in what has always attracted me to the Waffen SS – their capabilities as fighting soldiers.

[Tytti]

I guess I might ask a question from the other side: I've always wondered how Americans explain to themselves that they were helping a dictator who also was responsible for millions of deaths (more than Hitler probably), starting at least one war and occupying independent countries. I even found at least three people with the same (Finnish) lastname as mine (not very common, at least in Russia) who had been executed in 1938 (http://visz.nlr.ru:8101/project/reg/r...) and that was just in one area with maybe 460 000 people and only in two years' time, and not counting those who had been sent to gulag. It was known what was happening there even before the WWII but did it really matter? I sort of know the answer already but still...

At the moment Stalin is remembered as a hero in Russia but many of his victims are still buried in archives. Germans have been demonized now for almost 70 years while Russians haven't really even acknowledged their crimes. You can read for yourself here http://sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id... I just feel there is a double standard in all of this.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

I think you need to look at your question Tytti - American wasn't helping Stalin out of choice - Germany declared War on America, Stalin was already fighting Germany so they became an ally by circumstance. Everyone knew of the horrors of Stalin's regime but were the allies prepared to allow Russia to fall so Germany could reign supreme with all the horrors associated with that evil regime?

Even Churchill who carried a hatred and fear of Russia and who knew of the dangers involved in assisting Russia knew that England could not afford for Russia to fall in the fight against Nazi Germany.

I suppose it can best be summed up by the famous quote: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

[Tytti]

Well that is exactly what I meant, I knew the answer and even understand the situation. I am paying a devil's advocate here a bit. But what I meant was that for some reason Russia/Soviet Union has come out of the war as a hero. (Yes of course it is because they won the war.) But no one from that side has ever been tried for war crimes, even though they certainly committed them. Personally I have always thought both Stalin and Hitler were more or less equally bad (though Stalin would have been more dangerous for my family) but I seem to have noticed that books in English concentrate more on Germany and its crimes. (It feels we are less partial here.) I guess it's because they are written from Allied perspective.

Well, one of the reasons I became interested in WWII were the differencies and contradictions between English/American movies and documentaries about the war and what I had learned told from our perspective. But it does feel weird having to sometimes defend our involvement and leadership, especially during the Continuation War. (Not here but in general.) Nobody is criticizing Churchill or Roosevelt even though they helped Stalin and Finland mostly only received help from Germany.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

I think most people now a day accept that the Soviet people are the real heroes of WW2 but never Stalin and his murderous crew.

Totally agree with you about Stalin's crimes but it's very hard to conduct war crime trials against one of the victors and allies in the defeat of Nazi Germany.

I suppose one question that could also be asked in regards to Finland is; did she have to join Germany in WW2 or could she have remained neutral? I know that she had land she wanted to reclaim from Russia but was there a dire necessity to join the Nazi's in their war of conquest?

I am sure that this is a subject that provokes many emotions for the Finnish people still now?

[Dachokie]

It's strange, but in the last few decades I see more of an effort to excuse Stalin by claiming his atrocities have been exaggerated or even false ... In my opinion he was no different from Hitler.

I'm actually reading a book now Was Hitler Ill?: A Final Diagnosis. ... It's quite interesting

[Dachokie]

I think I'm going to look for a good book on the Winter War ... Sadly, in the US, it's significance is ignored (as is the Eastern Front) ...

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

It would be very hard to read a book excusing Stalin for the crimes committed against his own people and others.

Some excellent books out on the Winter War Dachokie, I am sure Tytti can recommend a few. There is a new release due out soon that may be helpful:

by Gordon F. Sander

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

A few others on the Winter War easily available in English are:


by William R. Trotter

by Eloise Engle

by Robert Edwards

[Tytti]

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "I think most people now a day accept that the Soviet people are the real heroes of WW2 but never Stalin and his murderous crew."

Well for me they are not heroes of any kind and I'm pretty sure most Estonians would agree with me, too, others maybe as well. The conflict over the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn is a good example of the feelings that go along with it. In general I think I feel the same way about the Red Army as you do about Wehrmacht and even Waffen-SS. Actually I think people living in West might have a hard time understanding the fear that Soviet Union caused us in Eastern Europe.

The Continuation War... Many people (even Finns) have suggested that we could have remained neutral but no one has said how. In a way we weren't neutral anymore, that choice was taken from us when the Soviet Union attacked. (English texts sometimes refer to Winter War as "pre-WWII" conflict, which I think is weird, though that is also the Russian view. The Soviet history forgot that it ever happened.) Personally I think that our leaders would have made a huge mistake if they hadn't looked for help anywhere possible. The Soviet Union was pressuring throughout the Interim Peace and even shot down a passenger plane. IIRC they have also found new attack plans from the Soviet archives so it was just a matter of time before another war would have begun.

[Tytti]

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Some excellent books out on the Winter War Dachokie, I am sure Tytti can recommend a few. There is a new release due out soon that may be helpful:"

Sorry, I don't think I can. All except one have been written by non-Finns and I've read only Trotter's book, I believe. Every book probably tells all the main events but for all the rest that was going on... not so sure about that.

Hmm.. Max Jakobson does have a couple of books about the Winter War but I'm not sure how easily you could get them, they are quite old.

EDIT: It seems that Sander's book has got good reviews from Finns so I would suggest that one.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Good to hear as I have Sander's book on order :)

I think most people will agree with you about the Soviet Union and its naked aggression against those smaller countries on its borders prior to WW2 and no argument about Stalin being an evil man but I think the Russian citizens and soldiers who fought against the German invaders from 1941 onwards were heroic in their actions to defend their 'motherland' - no different from the Finns who rose up to stop the Russian invaders in the Winter War.

Everyone would agree that Finland amazed the world in stopping the Russian bear during the Winter War and how well it’s Army fought under horrific conditions however in 1941 I think Finland did a deal with the devil and chose the wrong side? This is not to say that any other country in similar circumstances may not have done the exact same thing but however you look at it Finland fought on Germany's side during WW2. This also does not mean that we should ever forget the evil done by Stalin's regime.

[Nick]

...that the Waffen SS was an elite formation not unlike the Roman Praetorian Guard and the weapons that Germany developed were in many cases outstanding. The Esprit de corps of their units was something that many other countries aspired to.

Even allowing for the difference in the eras, I'm not sure holding up such "elite" formations as the 1 SS, 2 SS, 5 SS and 12 SS Divisions (which were the mainstay of the Waffen SS) as a paragons of anything, let along a Praetiorian Guard, is a particularly apt analogy. Any way you slice it, these guys were thugs, even within the context of their time.

You can talk about their "valor" all you want; for the most part, it was done more out of neecessity than out of any inate character traits. Thanks to their own excesses, any SS trooper captured on the Eastern Front knew he was a dead man. They weren't courageous out of any sense of noblity (or any other admirable trait, for that matter). You can make a good argument that it was out of cowardice - they were scared to death of what awaited them if they were captured. (Being courageous at gunpoint is not anything to brag about) Interestingly, Western soldiers were less so-inclined, unless they were captured by the SS, in which case they were quite correct in being worried about their fate.

One of my hobbies is military simulations. We have long had a problem with the "glorification" (if you will) of the German Army, not only by the mindless fanboys but by people who should know better. (In fact, every decade or so, the hobby goes through a period of self-criticism over this very matter) Whem I was (much) younger, I, too, had a fascination, if you will, of the German Army (and the Waffen SS) but as I have gotten older, and my reading tastes have widened, I have realized that this was quite fatuous. These were not people to admire, in any sense of the word.

As for the Soviets, it was not my intention to set up a "my bad guy is worse than your bad guy" scenario. That's not a particularly productive discussion. One might note, however, that the US did not seek out the Soviet Union as an ally. You might recall that Nazi Germany declared war on the US first so in that sense, there was no choice in the matter. If an alliance with Stalin was a deal with the devil, it was a dela not made by choice.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

I disagree with some of the things in your statement/s but also agree with parts of it Nick.

I dare say this discussion could continue on and on, we all have our own opinions and I'm glad that it was discussed in a professional manner amongst the members here, thanks everyone for their thoughts & comments.

[Jeff]

I can not say enough good accolades for the following two books. I came across them at an independent store a few years ago, and got more then I bargained for. Ziemke does an excellent job of describing the tactical mistakes both sides encountered as the Germans pushed towards Moscow and vice-a-verse, as the Russians threw them out of the "Motherland."
Moscow and Stalingradand Stalingrad to Berlin: The German Defeat in the East

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Hi Jeff, thanks for the recommendations on those two books, I am sure a few members will follow up and check them out :)

[Kris]

Nick I don't think anyone debates the horrific things that the SS did in WWII. You seem to have a singular vision about this complex time in human history , which I must say conveys a simplistic idea of what and how all the people of the time must have endured, as well as been conflicted about. One of the stark realities of this conflict is that a group of people who committed such gross atrocities also displayed such a stark effort in it's defense, that almost 70 years later it still creates and demands so much emotion from all who read about it.
Obviously some people go to far in this but I think most people just mistakenly focus on the things that are the closest to noble virtues because an overly stark viewing of the horrible is not a sustainable view for many. I say this in complete agreement with all the things you have said about the barbarity committed by the SS while still agreeing with all who say that the Wehrmacht fought skillfully at all times until the end. This is one of the compelling things about reading and studying this ultimate conflict of human civilization.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Very well put Kris, I think that every point of view presented so far has merit in some way. Whenever I read or discuss history I try to look at the events and consider the situation presented to those who actually lived in that period - always something difficult to do when we are looking back over many years. Everything that has been said here in this discussion has in no way excused the terrible deeds committed by the SS or other combatants.

[carl]

Well put Chris. Interesting perspectives from
all around.

[Stephen]

Yes great discussion guys with well put and thought out comments. I have visited many war based forums where controversial topics quickly turn into shouting matches, which get no where.

[Wade]

I followed the discussion and agree w/Stephen...it was a good exchange of views &ideas in a amicable fashion...well done by all.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Couldn't agree more with all that has been said by folks so far. Some subjects are very hard to discuss without emotions getting involved. I like how this group has discussed a range of topics to date without things getting heated or nasty, thanks everyone :)

[Jeff]

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Couldn't agree more with all that has been said by folks so far. Some subjects are very hard to discuss without emotions getting involved. I like how this group has discussed a range of topics to d..."

Here, here!

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

I don't think this book has been mentioned before and it may interest some members of the group; On the Precipice: Stalin, the Red Army Leadership and the Road to Stalingrad, 1931-1942.

by Peter Mezhiritskiy
Description:
Like some astronomers, who discover cosmic objects not by direct observation, but by watching the deviations of known heavenly bodies from their calculated trajectories, Peter Mezhiritsky makes his findings in history through thoughtful reading and the comparison of historical sources. This book, a unique blend of prosaic literature and shrewd historic analysis, is dedicated to events in Soviet history in light of Marshal Zhukov's memoirs. Exhaustive knowledge of Soviet life, politics and censorship, including the phraseology in which Communist statesmen were allowed to narrate their biographical events, gave Peter Mezhiritsky sharp tools for the analysis of the Marshal's memoirs. The reader will learn about the abundance of awkward events that strangely and fortuitously occurred in good time for Stalin's rise to power, about the hidden connection between the purges, the Munich appeasement and the German occupation of Czechoslovakia, and about the real reason why it took so long to liquidate Paulus' Sixth Army at Stalingrad. The author presents a clear picture of the purges which promoted incompetent and poorly educated commanders (whose most prominent feature was their personal dedication to Stalin) to higher levels of command, leaving the Soviet Union poorly prepared for a war against the Wehrmacht military machine. The author offers alternative explanations for many prewar and wartime events. He was the first in Russia to acknowledge a German component to Zhukov's military education. The second part of the book is dedicated to the course of the Great Patriotic War, much of which is still little known to the vast majority of Western readers. While not fully justifying Zhukov's actions, the author also reveals the main reason for the bloody strategy chosen by Zhukov and the General Staff in the defensive period of the War. In general, the author shares and argues Marshal Vasilevsky's conviction - if there had been no purges, the war would not have occurred. The book became widely known to the Russian-reading public on both sides of the Atlantic, and in the last ten years its quotations have been used as an essential argument in almost all the debates about the WWII. The book is equally intended for scholars and regular readers, who are interested in Twentieth Century history.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

For those fans of Osprey titles here is one of their latest books which is due out for release in August this year:

by Robert Kirchubel
Description:
In the first 6 months of Hitler's World War II Nazi invasion, over 5 million of Stalin's Russian troops were killed, wounded, or captured defending their Motherland.

Germany's surprise assault on the Soviet Union in June 1941, Operation Barbarossa, aimed at nothing less than the destruction of the Soviet Union. Adolf Hitler saw this as the last vital step in the establishing of 'Lebensraum' for the German people in the East.
Three German Army Groups, supported by numerous European allies, poured across the Soviet border crushing all before them in a lightning campaign that threatened to eliminate all Soviet resistance and secure an easy victory. However, the vast resources and size of Soviet Russia caused the German armoured spearheads to slow and the advance finally ground to a halt within sight of Moscow itself, and with it Hitler's dreams of a quick victory.

This book combines Osprey's three Campaign titles on the Barbarossa campaign, along with new material specifically created, in order to tell the story of one of definitive campaigns of World War II.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

For those members who enjoyed Stephen Barratt's first volume covering the German operations near Kiev from the 24th December 1943 to the 31st January 1944 in his book; Zhitomir-Berdichev, will be happy to see that the second volume is due out in a few months:

by Stephen Barratt
Description:
This is the second volume of a two-volume set, which together comprise a detailed and well-researched history of the important but neglected operation that was to be the beginning of the liberation of western Ukraine. On 24 December 1943, the Red Army launched the first of a series of winter offensives against the German Army Group South under von Manstein, the overall object of which was to liberate western Ukraine from occupation. This first offensive is known to Soviet historians as the Zhitomir-Berdichev operation. Based on the unpublished records of the German 1st and 4th Panzer Armies, and supplemented by comprehensive mapping and order of battle data, this book provides an authoritative, detailed, day-by-day account of German operations as they developed in response to the Soviet offensive. It also provides a vivid insight into the planning and decision-making of the German Army field commands in conducting not only a mobile defense, but also a series of counterattacks, which, in the final analysis, could do little more than provide a temporary respite in the face of the growing strength and skill of the Red Army. Following on from where Volume 1 left off, this second volume describes events from 10 to 31 January 1944 and details the series of counterattacks undertaken by the Germans as they tried desperately to stabilize a situation that had already slipped beyond their control. By the time the last of these counterattacks was drawing to a close, the conditions had already been established for the next major Soviet offensive in the region: the Korsun' pocket. In tracing the course of these counterattacks, the book describes how the German operational situation developed during the period immediately leading up to the Soviet Korsun' offensive. Volume 2 includes the appendices, which provide order of battle detail for both sides, and comes with a separately bound book of 253 detailed daily situation maps in color to allow the reader to follow operations as they developed day by day. The first volume, already available from Helion, described operations until 9 January 1944, during which period the German forces were pushed back forcibly under the weight of the Soviet offensive. Together this two-volume set comprises a groundbreaking survey, which is likely to set a new standard for future studies of operational combat on the Eastern Front.


Volume one:

by Stephen Barratt

[Bracken]

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Some excellent observations and comments being made by everyone here. I tend to agree with most of what is being said. I have always had a fascination with the Waffen SS since I joined the Army in ..."

As I understand it was generally the motivation rather than actual excellence 'arete' of the SS units that drove them to their achievements. It is well understood by the German accounts that the Waffen SS was, as a rule, poorly lead by objective leaders. They were generally poor strategists; perhaps able tacticians, but ultimately derailed the later efforts of centralization and equipment of the Heeres. They were lavishly equipped compared to Army units even up until the end of the war.

Even Russian accounts substantiate these later claims. ( I am fluent in Russian.) While one can regard the Russian accounts with the same degree of detachment in regards to 'accuracy' as the German ones: there comes a point at which a person must stop seeing differences and finding the similar threads. A similar thread in Russian literature is the fanaticism and wealth of equipment available to Waffen SS units compared to the average Heeres infantry division or PKW division. The Russians regarded the WSS units carefully, but knew their value as well as the germans. They were good shock troops, but they were not the 'best' troops.

Of course there's a reason why. The Waffen SS had a habit of tatooing a person's blood type beneath their arm. Like the infamous commissar order in reverse; people found with this tattoo were instantly killed if captured. Still, Hitler wanted his "Praetorian Guard" to levy against the professionalism of the Reischwarr Officer Corps which Hitler distrusted.

Objectively speaking the best German 'Army' troops: professionally - all around: were in all likelihood the Fallschirmjäger.

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Any view on the capability of the Luftwaffe field divisions that were eventually absorbed into the Heer Bracken? I have read that they gave good accounts of themselves.

[Bracken]

Actually all i've read suggests to the contrary. Highly motivated but poorly trained, equipped, and led. A disaster and waste of manpower.

[Bracken]

To clarify though: all of my reading on them has been from very subjective sources. I only know technical German ( as acquired through studying military history.) I wouldn't mind getting my hands on some AARs from Luftwaffe Field Divisions, but most of the generals interrogated at the end of the war said that those divisions were an unnecessary waste. Even Kesselring agreed on this matter in his memoirs. Manstein and Guderian also noted this. Donitz made passing reference to the Luftwaffe field divisions as the "Fat man's pet tragedy" in his journal... On the other side the Russian sources are fairly nonplussed. That is to say, most Russian resources are even more unreliable than their German counterparts. 10 tanks in German becomes 120 tanks in the Russian version of the same encounter.

Glantz is making headway here, but he has turned the necessary objectivism into a sort of crusade. He is hard to read sometimes on the ground that he is quite obviously making a pro-russian pass when that's not the job of a military study or historian.

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Interesting thanks I know many volunteered for service - this was the main source I'd read about them, aside from odd mentions in other books: by Kevin Ruffner

There doesn't seem to be a lot of information in English language books on the training, equipping and supply; plus performance in the field.

[Bracken]

Albert Speer makes reference to them in passing, if I recall in his Memoirs. Essentially Goering wanted to prove that he could win on the ground since he had failed at leading the Luftwaffe appropriately in the air. Since he was THE Reich-Marshal, who was going to say no?

I remember Ruffner's book vaguely. I think it was a bed-time book. I tend to not remember those very well or absorb very little out of them - haha.

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Glantz is good on detail but requires real concentration, and for me a number of re-reads on passages - funny your point on bed-time as that's when I read most and Glantz is not good at that time hence the re-reading of passages.

And as for Goering thinking he could win no surprise there then - after all the man who could beat the RAF over the skies of Britain in a couple of days and could easily supply the 6th Army with hundreds of tonnes of supplies a day :)

[Bracken]

Hans Jeschonnek was really to blame for that. He was the Luftwaffe's Chief of Staff. Jeschonnek -if I recall -based it off of the Luftwaffe's success in supplying the Demyansk Pocket during the winter of 1941-1942.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

You guys might be interested in this book covering the Luftwaffe Field Divisions; Goring's Grenadiers. I've heard/read the same thing about their combat effectiveness as you mentioned Bracken.

by Antonio J. Muñoz

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

In regards to the Waffen SS I agree that in their early campaigns they were very amateurish in their approach to tactics & combat leading to a high casualty rate but later in the war they set up combat leadership courses for junior leaders/officers and they of course learnt from their mistakes. I think they were still a highly effective tactical unit and were quite good in the offensive and the defensive. I would only suggest this in a number of their formations, from the 1st SS up to the 12th SS.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Totally agree with you both about Glantz. His books are must have's for any serious military library but reading them can be a bit of a struggle. His book on Kursk is a classic and definitive account but I had issues with the maps.

by David M. Glantz

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Bracken wrote: "Hans Jeschonnek was really to blame for that. He was the Luftwaffe's Chief of Staff. Jeschonnek -if I recall -based it off of the Luftwaffe's success in supplying the Demyansk Pocket during the wi..."

I recall or think I do in either Beevor or Erickson that the 6th Army needed something like 600 tonnes (??) a day but ended up with much much less and never if ever did they make the target figure - thought it was Goering but happily corrected.

[happy]

These last few posts have been fascinating - GV, AR and Bracken, Thanks for your comments and insights

[Mike, Assisting Moderator US Forces]

Geevee wrote: "I recall or think I do in either Beevor or Erickson that the 6th Army needed something like 600 tonnes (??) a day but ended up with much much less and never if ever did they make the target figure - thought it was Goering but happily corrected. "

Since I have Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege, 1942-1943 conveniently at hand, the figures were: 6th Army estimate 700 tons/day; Goering estimated 500 tons/day (pulled out of his fat arse); Luftwaffe estimate of 300 sorties per day needed; best delivery rate was just over 500 tons in a week. And usually much less.

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Thanks Mike and I like your own piece of prose within too :)

[Colin]

See Galland's chapter in my book "The German Aces Speak", where he discussed the Stalingrad issue with Goering and Wolfrum von Richthofen. Interesting indeed.

[Bracken]

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "You guys might be interested in this book covering the Luftwaffe Field Divisions; Goring's Grenadiers. I've heard/read the same thing about their combat effectiveness as you mentioned Bracken.

[bo..." I will check that out in the future perhaps. Right now my hands are really full of set aside projects and medical problems.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

Nothing too serious I hope Bracken.

[Bracken]

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Nothing too serious I hope Bracken."

I was hesitant to offer a reply on the grounds of derailing the thread, but the honest truth is: it is a terminal condition.

Fortunately ( or unfortunately ) it has no immediacy. That is to say, it just lowers my life-expectancy dramatically. I deal with significant daily problems because of it, but I won't be bed-ridden supposedly for at least another two decades.

['Aussie Rick', Moderator]

I'm truly sorry to hear that Bracken but I dare say not much can be said by a stranger like me that will help.

[Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces]

Bracken wrote: "'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Nothing too serious I hope Bracken."

I was hesitant to offer a reply on the grounds of derailing the thread, but the honest truth is: it is a terminal condition.

Fortunately..."

Bracken you're welcome to dip in to the group as you like and are able, and if active discussion helps even for a few seconds to make things better then it'll be a pleasure to join in with you. We've already had a good run above so we're here when you want to post :)