Germany Army: Quality or Quantity? feat. Prof. Neitzel
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 гру 2020
- In this video Professor Neitzel discusses the degradation of German Kampfkraft ("fighting power") during the Second World War. For this we also compare the different challenges the Wehrmacht and particularly the German Army faced on the Eastern and Western front.
Disclaimer: I received a pre-release ebook of Prof. Neitzel’s Book “ Deutsche Krieger. Vom Kaiserreich zur Berliner Republik - eine Militärgeschichte ”.
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon, see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
Neitzel, Sönke: Deutsche Krieger. Vom Kaiserreich zur Berliner Republik - eine Militärgeschichte. Propyläen: Berlin, Germany, 2020.
#MeatGrinder,#TechGrinder,#DeutscheKrieger
"The Wehrmacht was not prepared for a Marathon. It was a sprinter." sums it well.
In a nutshell
@@fulcrum2951 kurzgezact
Spot on.
That is what you get when you take the "Blitzkrieg-Doctrine" in Hearts of Iron. High Org, but bad org recovery. :-P But then again: Going Sprinter is the only chance for Germany. Marathon againgst USSR? Even more suicide.
@@briantarigan7685 Underrated comment
Other channels:
"Wikipedia is a good enough sourde"
MHV:
"So I invited yet another professor..."
It’s up to all of us, to bring the professors knowledge into the Wikipedia.
@@monkeydank7842 100%
@@monkeydank7842 Damn right! I better be seeing a Wikipedia page on this video.
Wikijudea lies by omission. And lying.
@@michaelwilliams854 Do you have a source for this claim?
Wow, the tech war was something I barely considered, really interesting!
The tech war?
@@melvinjansen2338 He talks about it later on in the video - air and naval war is significantly more resource intensive than the ground war. So while the eastern front ground down their manpower, the western front ground down their resources.
Something I hadn't fully considered either.
Also the allies had a lot more engineers, chemist and other highly specialized technical personal to draw on
Things like radar,Sonar and other advances in technology of which germans fell behind in.
Look at axis plane losses 1941 and 1943 they spike when fighting uk/USA forces
They lost them on one side when they needed them on the other
@@jasonharryphotog Interestingly, this tine the Germans were being shot down over their own territory. In contrast to the Battle of Britain and the Eastern Front, you would make it home if they survived.
Even if the German built more tanks and slown down the Red Army, they would still have run out of fuel. More quickly, actually.
@Josef D yeah, manpower issues too. Especially since Prof. Neitzel notes the panzer divisions were already in part draining competent men from the infantry: more tanks would have deepened the problem.
@UCMogVzxZdW8g6cyEO3XdebA well, while dashing for the caucasus they ran out of supplies multiple times and that caused them to halt often and slowed down the operations. Even reaching the oil fields would have overestended their lines while having serious men shortages. Not mentioning the fact that the oil fields are in the caucasus region and in mountanous terrain tanks are not really helpful. Even bringing more men would have probably caused a supply collapse, if you add to them tanks the supply lines would fail even sooner
Maikop oil field was destroyed so well before German occupation, it took few years after war to rastart production.
Thats the point, a plane needs more fuel, than a tank :D Also you have to consider the Infrastructure you need for Airwarfare
Who know's but that's completely superfically thought. If they could have built more tanks because there was no need for all these rescources in the west, they obviously would have also had more fuel, maybe still not enough overall but maybe enough to achieve other goals, goals that would have given them more fuel capacity.
Manpower lost in the east
A costly resource war in the west
And British knowing your every move and telling the east in real time
Especially since the head of the Abwehr was literally part of German resistance against the nazis thus giving information freely away.
I gave this a like, despite, and I want to emphasise this, that appallingly tied tie.
What's wrong with his knot?
@@MChagall Timothy doesn't like big triangles.
Thick tie - small knot; with a spread or cutaway collar use a smaller knot. The tie should be 1/3rd tie and 1/3rd f the width of the exposed collar on each side. Use a simple oriental knot, for long thin ties use a half windsor, or a full windsor.
Peter doesn't like them either.
@@peterk2455 full windsor = double windsor no? That is what he is wearing in the video.
I've seen Professor Nietzel in countless documentaries. If topic includes the Wehrmacht, Sonke is your go-to guy.
Here, take my ö, for Sönke ;)
@@The_Old_Gang My American keyboard doesn't include that button. If it did, I still would not use it.
@@BamBamBigelow.. I wrote this mainly as a joke
English speakers don't care about umlauts
@@BamBamBigelow.. ö
was actually very enlightening, i never really thought about the "tech" grind the western allies provided, and the insane casualty rates are usually glanced over in arguments amongst laymen it seems. thanks for the video!
Just one example; there would have been hundreds more 88's on the Eastern front if they had not been needed in Germany for the bombing war. That would have stopped many Russian tanks and made combined infantry/tank attacks far more expensive.
That book's proposed heavier weighing of the air war's influence is an interesting idea to be sure. If I may be a bit cheeky here though: it could also come from a place of wanting to "claim" the credit of being the ones to finally stop Germany's advance, which is usually begrudgingly ascribed to the Soviets.
I prefer these works over Military history visualized, you act more freely here!
The different formats are complementary.
Fascinating interview sir
I love all your videos. I think this is ,from an informational and educational perspective, one of the best. You really are branching out and getting better all the time. Keep up the Great Work!
This is such high quality content. Even when they were simply infographics. I’ve been watching since 2017. But now this is crazy, the locations, travel, professors, production quality. Damn
Informative and insightful video as always
I have learned more about Napoleonic Wars through to World War II and Beyond by channels like yours than anything elsewhere, plus new books by Glantz, Kotkin, Gordon but most importantly you guys, and its about time we see some of them on your channel for less than a 20sec sound bite. Well done Bernard thank you
Please more of Prof. Neitzel it really adds to the quality of the videos
Hervorragendes Video, auch durch die Präsenz von Prof. Neitzel. Habs dieses WS leider nicht zu War and conflict studies in Potsdam reingeschafft, aber nächstes Jahr krieg ich das hin!
Weiter so Bernhard! So geht zeitgemäße Historiker-Arbeit!
as always well presented and informative.
I like the counterfactual historical examples.
What?
@@JCRS2 8:57 What would have happened had the Wehrmacht attacked France in 1939, and 13:08 would Germany have stopped the Soviets had they spent much more on tank production and less on aircraft.
I don't get it
@@blacksmith67 they weren't on the same production game m8 greyhound
@@Ok-fj4mv if you go to the time stamps, these are more or less what the guest professor is asking as counterfactual questions. I like it when people ask open ended questions about what might have happened.
Not a big fan of people who insist that they absolutely know the answer, these are exercises to inspire thinking, not end it.
I got my ” I am cät person” t-shirts... thanks quality material in videos and t-shirt!!!! BR from Finland.
Awesome! Thank you!
Interesting comments on the bombing campaign. Would love to hear more about that and the impact of resource allocation.
Nice summary of the whole war on the eastern Front - this is one of the few videos on this plattform I really agree with to 100% - keep up the good work
i really like this cooperation. Interesting Stuff :)
Neat! Thanks for the video
I wish, these interviews were longer. Very interesting.
The technology competition and related economics are very interesting. A longer presentation with more detail would be great. Thanks
Excellent analysis!
Another amazing video !!
Excellent video and analysis !!
Enlightening .. thank you.
I will look into this book, looks interesting
The good content keeps on coming!
Well done.
Thank you for posting. Would love to read this but I last studied German at college over 30 years ago. Perhaps time to kick start me learning again.
.
.?
.
.?
.
, Zola.lz. a
A
A
.
.
.
.
A.
A.
Excellent video!
In the world at war documentary (If you haven't seen it, it's a must-watch) Albert Speer said that the air war was essentially a second front by 1941. Even if the air attacks had done no damage at all, the amount of resources, manpower, and fuel that Germany expended in defense of its air space constituted a second front.
Looking forward to an English translation of The Professors work.
I really enjoyed Professor Neitzel explain some of the breakdowns of the German Wehrmacht and factors that lost them the war. He seems extremely knowledgeable in German military history. I would enjoy speaking to Professor Neitzel sometime or at least listening to his lectures. Excellent presentation. Cheers!
Very good video. I really enjoy your content.
Your guest was excellent !
Nice talk. And it seems to be an interesting book!
That was fascinating, thanks. A favourite book of mine on the subject is Overy's Why the Allies Won. The commitment of technical resources to air and sea power in the west was something he didn't cover.
I am so happy to see historians on your channel, they have figured out that the 20sec sound bite on "history" shows on bbc, history channel etc. are a fares. If they want to reach an audience that cares and wants to learn about history, instead of the flawed shows I see on "mainstream" channels they need to do more with guys like you Bernard. Outstanding work please keep it up.
Thanks. Great interview. Is an English translation of the book available?
Its amazing how the Werhmacht kept fighting so long and so effective . I mean the losses by the Red Army are Appalling!
War criminals are not heroes
@@davidtrindle6473 When the other side is brutal and doesn't sign the Geneva conventions, and is known historically for it's brutality, you bet they'll be brutal back. It's not only natural, it's perfectly logical. War crimes are a product of war. Go search up American war crimes in Iraq, mass rapes and murders of children. It's unfortunate, but it happens. SS and Werhmacht were charged and court martialed like any other army.
@@FortniteBlaster2 yeah i always think of "unleashing the dogs of war"...but a great deal of posters need to hide behind the morality of their side.
@@davidtrindle6473 he
i find it funny to hear that from what i presume is an englishmen......
@@davidtrindle6473 so basically all russians to the modern day
very cool dude this prof!
Will this book be available in English?
Edit: Sorry saw you reply to David Vazquez. Hopefully there will be!
Well, the choice of having a high quality elite and a great number of low quality divisions was forced. We should not forget that the Wehrmacht has been built in a short amount of time, starting from the limited forces of the Reichswehr. Even with the furious rate of rearmament that characterized 1933-1939, that put a huge strain on Germany's resources, it was not possible to completely rebuild the German Army.
The losses of the first world war had flow on effects that reduced available manpower in the second world war, both in experienced leadership and numbers of the replacement generation.
Which is why the Army did not want to go in 1939.
Just one word. Beautiful! 👌🏻
Common sense: You cannot sustain multiple wars in short succession.
German high command: Ha ha blitzkrieg go brrrrrr!
They didn’t plan for a long war
After britain the Luftwaffe assumed to be a five year break I’ve read
So ordering and manufacturing and processes before Speer etc was not efficient
They were tripping over their shoe laces in many respects
@@jasonharryphotog Plus too high standards of quality resulted in the Americans and Soviets building 4-10 tanks for every Tiger or Panther.
Germany died on their lack of industrial capacity and lack of trained soldiers, which was a result of underestimating the Soviet industrial might and manpower. The Germans thought the Soviets could only muster about 100 divisions at max, but within a year 300 divisions were operational.
I can remember reading somewhere that the Germans had to replace the battle-hardened soldiers of the Western Front, the soldiers that were supposed to be defending the west wall with recruits to send more experienced soldiers to die in the eastern front.
@@teaser6089 The war based on race was always going to make for a dangerous and violent period in time, with civil wars and everything else in between going on in the fog of war. In any event, Germany's war council smashed itself to pieces, in any great fights the winner is the one who makes the least mistakes, once the side stated off on a certain trajectory however as time went on simply collapsed in on itself mortally wounded.
@@teaser6089 The German "high standards" were a result of producing on a peace footing. In peace time footing companies get more money for equipment and can sell more expensive, but less quantity of equipment. Pretty much all of Speer's magical increase of productivity was just German industries switching to a war footing, streamlining production and simplifying the weapon systems.
All in all the plan was to win by end of 1941 and they failed to ask the question in what state germany would have to be if the war continues in 1942/43. Not to say that'd been enough because this multi front war was also not really what they wanted but stumbled into. Interesting alternative history question would be how well/badly Germany had faired if it had assumed a defensive posture against the Soviet Union and concentrate on defeating Britain in the Mediterranian and maintaining her resources.
That said there was the impression from the Winter War which told everyone around the globe that just right at this moment the Soviet Army is a second tier army that can barely fight plucky Finland by sheer numbers. So waiting had the threat of the Soviet army getting their act together before joining the war later.
Bottom line: Germany should have realized being in the middle of Europe means you should have at least some allies on your side or not start a war to begin with.
@@mangalores-x_x Agreed, also the Soviets did get their act together, cause it wasn't the soldiers or the equipment at fault during the early stages of the Winter War, but the generals that were idiots.
I wonder whether the questions discussed here are discussed in more detailed in Neitzel‘s book. I would be very thankful if one who already could read it could answer this, as I would like to afford it in this case!
Thanks in advance
Ich lese Neitzels Buch gerade. Hervorragend geschrieben, sehr informativ.
Werde es mir zu Weihnachten gönnen, freu ich mich schon drauf
Absolut spannendes Buch über die verschiedenen deutschen Armeen seit 1870. Ohne ‚Krieger‘ geht es nicht - auch nicht in Afghanistan!
Part 3: Gen. George S. Patton wrote: "It is an unfortunate and, to me, tragic fact that in our attempts to prevent war, we have taught our people to belittle the heroic qualities of the soldier." Where in Europe, young men of each nation's elite have, in war, traditionally gravitated towards the "teeth arms" -- rifle and armored regiments -- America's elite in the 20th century have shown other enthusiasms.
America's brightest and best gravitated instinctively towards the specialist arms, managerial military functions or staff jobs. This is not to deny that some Ivy Leaguers fought with distinction at the sharp end in northwest Europe. But it is reasonable to suggest that in World War II, American infantry units suffered from a severe shortage of educated officer leadership.
Interviewing war veterans, in marked contrast to Europeans who generally acknowledge respect for their officers, American private soldiers lavish regard upon good NCOs, but seldom reveal much for their unit commanders. Many American privates in northwest Europe cannot today recall the name of their battalion commander. I have seldom met any European veteran of whom this would be true.
The notorious American infantry replacement system, by which men were arbitrarily posted to a numbered, non-territorial unit, and had no chance to build the loyalty possible in a British regiment, created deep unhappiness among many men, and contributed to the U.S. Army's alarming total of almost a million battle-fatigue cases in World War II.
By the spring of 1944, the War Department perceived that a great mistake had been made in according such low manpower priority to infantry. Specialist branches and lines-of- communication units had been permitted to skim off an absurdly high proportion of the fittest and best- educated men. Of 1942 army volunteers, only 5 percent had chosen infantry or armor. It was found that 1944 infantrymen were an inch shorter than the army's average, a fair measure of general physique.
Although infantry made up only 6 percent of the entire service -- an alarmingly low proportion -- they were suffering more than 80 percent of American casualties in Europe. Although 54.3 percent of the German army was composed of fighting soldiers, this figure fell to 38 percent in the U.S. Army. About 45 percent of the Wehrmacht was committed to combat divisions, against 21 percent for the U.S. Army. The Americans possessed a far higher proportion of officers to men: yet many more of those officers were employed in rear areas rather than with fighting formations.
In the last year of the war, great efforts were made within the U.S. Army to improve the ratio of teeth to tail; to divert high-quality manpower towards the infantry; to improve the level of infantry training and leadership. In all these things, there was some measure of success. Yet the Americans, like the British, never matched the extraordinary professionalism of the German soldier, an historic legacy that long predated Nazism.
It was probably fortunate for the future of Western civilization, but greatly increased Eisenhower's difficulties, that few Allied soldier saw themselves for a moment as other than civilians temporarily in uniform, while their German counterparts possessed an uncanny ability to transform themselves from butchers and bank clerks into natural tacticians. One of the more absurd propaganda cliches of the war was the image of the Nazi soldier as an inflexible squarehead. In reality, the German soldier almost invariably showed far greater flexibility on the battlefield than his Allied counterpart.
"The Germans were willing to act -- always," said the British Major- General Brian Wyldbore-Smith. They seldom failed to seize an opportunity offered by Allied error. They were masters of rapid counterattack after losing ground. They would hold a position to the last, then disengage masterfully.
Not every German soldier was a superman, not every formation of equal high quality. After the Battle of the Bulge, for all intents and purposes the Wehrmacht's last gasp in the west, the western Allies never again faced German units of the highest caliber. But throughout 1944, amid the monumental errors of Germany's high command, at regimental level the German soldier achieved miracles.
There was a contrast between the attitude and behavior of most young Britons and Americans on the battlefield against those of their German counterparts, and this was not exclusively the product of the enemy's political fanaticism. John Hersey wrote vividly from a Marine unit on Guadalcanal: "When you looked into the eyes of those boys, you did not feel sorry for the Japs: you felt sorry for the boys. The uniforms, the bravado . . . were just camouflage . . . . They were just American boys. They did not want that valley or any part of its jungle. They were ex-grocery boys, ex-highway laborers, ex-bank clerks, ex-schoolboys, boys with a clean record, not killers."
Yet in war, the army that proves most successful in making its raw recruits into killers possesses an immeasurable advantage. Montgomery wrote ruefully from the desert to Sir Alan Brooke in London, in identical vein with Hersey: "The trouble with our British boys is that they are not killers by nature."
In May 1945, the Allies attained victory first through the huge efforts of the Russians who had inflicted three-quarters of the German army's casualties; and second through the deployment of overwhelming resources. It may be argued that, after 1945, in seeking to learn the lessons of the World War II, the American Army made the mistake of reversing the order of these factors. American commanders came home from Europe believing they had proved that overwhelming air and firepower could not merely be a critical supplement to, but an effective substitute for, dedicated infantry fighting.
If so, this was an error of judgment that continues to cost America dear today. The shortcomings of American infantry in World War II were repeated in Korea, and in Vietnam. It is a great delusion to suppose that the Indochina war revealed unique, unprecedented problems in the U.S. Army. The American army created in World War II had suffered weaknesses and difficulties. These weaknesses, highlighted by media attention and by defeat, had existed since World War II but had never been discussed before.
Many Western professional soldiers believed in 1944-45, and still believe today, that until the United States can come to terms with the problem of producing massed forces of effective combat infantry, the continued commitment of technology and cash will not suffice to make her defense effective.
How is this relevant?
@@thethirdman225 Bruh, just enjoy some Patton.
citation? 😊
Very interesting read. Thanks
Hershey was a jerk. Those "boys" were men when it counted. They did what they had to do to the best of their ability, and they won. No one could ask any more of them.
Like for Neitzel.
Guter Mann, durch und durch.
As far as the air war that how the stug 4 came about the factory that made the stug 3 witch was made on panzer3 hull was bombed. So production was switches to the plant that made the panzer 4 hulls.so It defiantly had a impact.
How did you do this video set up btw, it is set up like a video call but with good quality recording equipment at either end. Did the Prof. just have that stuff or did you send it out to them? Either way is really good to listen to whilst playing HOI4 :')
He filmed this in the great war channel studio
we talked via skype, but recorded via local cameras and audio. As stated we were in the Great War Studio.
Been watching Prof. Neitzel on TV here in the US for years, clicked as soon as I saw the title.
EDIT: Excellent analogy, "a sprinter." My baccalaureate senior research paper was on the topic of Axis and Allied logistics in the Second World War.
Their problem was that they couldn't keep supply (literally) up with demand on the front and without adequate "catching up" time (noted extensively by Glantz in his "Stalingrad Trilogy [vol. 1 especially]); then those experienced troops lost simply could not be replaced. And to quote Halder "shortage of fuel and ammunition..."
I know NOBODY cares, but in case you are accidentally interested, I'll paste an excerpt from my logistics research below. I plan on expanding it into my MA thesis if the idea is approved:
Germany
Perhaps more than any other western European nation, Germany was the most dependent upon horses for the majority of its military transport capacity. During the early stages of the First World War Germany alone mobilized some 715,000 horses and their Austrian allies employed 600,000. Horses would be called upon again just over twenty years later as the primary source of mass overland mobility for Axis supplies.
During the Second World War, motorized vehicles would supplement, rather than replace horses in logistical operations. While preparing to invade the Soviet Union, German planners had to rely heavily on captured vehicles for both combat and transportation purposes. Prior to “Operation Barbarossa” (the German name for the planned invasion of the Soviet Union) many German commanders understood that their capacity to conquer large swathes of Russian territory would be limited by their slow-moving supply columns. Meanwhile the Soviets estimated that Riga (in north-central Latvia near the Baltic coast) and Kiev (southeast of Moscow) would be as far as the Wehrmacht could advance before coming to a full stop.
SOURCES for the above paragraphs:
. Siegfried Knappe, “Soldat.” (New York: Random House, 1992), 10, 40.
. John Keegan, “The First World War,” (New York: Vintage Books, 2000, 73.
. Williamson A. Murray, “The World in Conflict,” in The Cambridge History of Warfare, ed. Geoffrey Parker, (Cambridge: University Press, 2005) 333.
It is indeed very interesting, it comes to my attention that by the end of ww2 german forces were equipped with what was available at the nearest locations in terms of factories producing weapons and accessories because of the real chaos and constant air harassment threatening German logistics.
"Air artillery" (Stukas) was essential in starving Polish units out of all kinds of supplies. Prepositioned ammunition caches were destroyed as were logistical convoys while they were on the move. Many Polish units surrendered after running out or ammunition.
Excellent information, thanks for sharing. It seems like August 1943 was as a major turning point for the Wehrmacht.
Just ordered the book and some others from Prof Neitzel Good price for Hardcover! :)
Experience is obviously a huge factor and gave me many more ideas. Considering how crucial experienced troops are, it emphasizes to me, how important it is, to keep your troops alive not just from an ethical perspective but also from a military perspective as if you would literally not value human life as for example many totalitarian systems (eg. fascism and socialism) did.
Thinking about this, makes it even more insane, to think about how hesitant Germany is about introducing armed drones. A tool as revolutionary for the warfare as tanks have been. German politicians argue about his for 8 years and decided they have still more need to discuss about this more. They really know how to degenerate this nation thoroughly on every level. With our current politicians we wouldn't even have adapted the steam engine.
Next I would like to see Prof. Neitzel discuss the First World War and the Kaiserschlacht. Until then, I will hope for an English translation of the book.
Will there be an English translation of the book mentioned?
Using Overmann's casualty figures ( Menschenverluste der Wehrmacht an der Ostfront), I think it's possible to argue that the Wehrmacht must have already been close to losing its qualitative advantage well before the advance upon Stalingrad in the summer of 1942. Overmann's figures suggest that by the time the springboard operations towards the Caucasus and Stalingrad began in the spring of 1942, the Wehrmacht on the Ostfront had already suffered one and a quarter million casualties. By casualties, I refer to his own definition: that the wound required removal of the soldier from the battlefield. Clearly, some of these soldiers would have returned to the battlefield after a time, yet combine this with the failure to take Murmansk at the end of 1941, thus allowing enormous quantities of materiel to be imported at an astonishing rate for the remainder of the war, and the war in the east is already well and truly lost. The quality of the Wehrmacht soldiers remained high in comparison to other armies, but the losses were unsustainable and those of the Red army were supportable.
you don't even need Overman's (just one "n" this his case) numbers for that, during war-time the Germans did assessments on the combat effectiveness of their divisions, Summer 1941 vs. Spring 1942: ua-cam.com/video/caoxNSNcQZs/v-deo.html
At about 11:45, when discussing the effects of the air war, Prof Neitzel mentions a Cambridge University book by someone whose names sounds like Phillip Bryant or similar. Does anyone know the book title and correct author's name?
Considering the massive amounts of steel, plus logistics of sending tanks to the eastern front and training... I'm not sure if they could have scaled up to what was needed?
I like how he talks about the German Army as "we/us" and not only the "the Wermacht".
its funny
@@stardustcomet7527 not funny ha ha, but funny
He just quoted someone
Actually he doesn't. Except when quoting or when using indirect speech. As a historian it would be massively unprofessional.
It went from one extreme to the other
Time to recuperate or simply getting more equipment. The latter was the crucial factor in minimising infantry casualties. The major focus on cooperation with assault cannons, a relatively rare piece of equipment in infantry divisions, is a proof of that. The validity of the primat of modern warfare, "he who lacks equipment, pays with blood", is much in order here.
Is there an English version of Professor Neitzel's book?
As an after thought it would be interesting to do a case study on the V1/2 rockets as to there cost to develop.resource,and damage they actually caused, they seem to have been a total waste of time and money, perhaps good for moral only.
One dimension of the war that I think Prof Neitzel has overlooked is the psychological dimension. One of things I noticed was that the short sharp periods of the early war were followed by periods when those who died were laid to rest. The euphoria of the victory overshadowed lost comrades; however, the constant fear and stress was relieved. Upon the Russian campaign beginning, nearly all the old hands realized that this campaign was unlike anything they had undertaken before. Great encirclement battles could be sacrificed for and yet no end in sight came of them. As the advance continued the number of bold popular leaders began to decline simply through attrition. Yet in the autumn of 1941 psychologically the Wehrmacht was still a potent force. They still believed in their leadership and that victory was possible. Here the Moscow campaign became the final lunge well beyond their capability. But I contend that their morale and psychological state had declined but not taken a fatal turn for the worst. The period post Taifun is overlooked. Stalin ordered renewed offensives everywhere. This period was simply a frontline soldier’s frantic period of survival, consumed by staying alive, getting something to eat. Only on the quiet fronts did the melancholy set in. The Russian army being a poorly trained improperly lead military wasted itself against the remnants of the Wehrmacht. What remained within the Ost Heer was a small core of experienced small unit leaders, maybe corporals and a few lieutenants. Maybe former causalities returned to the unit. After the winter 1941 through spring 1942, wounded trickled back in to revitalize the moral. The Individual soldier would not have been privy to the true state of the Wehrmacht; however, they would have experienced the sense of loss of their friends. At this point they would have experienced the inward turn. By this I mean they began to shut themselves off from emotional attachment to replacements. Once again, the summer offensives and the fact that the Wehrmacht had not experienced any disastrous defeats still kept victory possible. What we overlook is the psychological attraction strategic objectives had. This is expressed by the fact that many soldiers undertook advances both into the caucuses and towards Stalingrad which once again were beyond proper logistical support. They did so under the false expectation that once these objectives were attained, the war would end. Unlike in the west no physical objective could define the end point. So they still believed they would win, however they were concerned deeply as to whether they would live to see the victory and piece. Stalingrad debacle shattered any delusion still remaining. Because the general Staff had become questioned also. Worse ultimate victory faded from their belief. I think that was the psychological culminating point. Failure of the relief effort at Stalingrad. Had a deep effect on the rest of the Ost Heer. It replaced the idea of one more try for victory to our focus is to survive the war.
Ich lebe in Hammamet Tunesien, dort wo Rommel bis zu Letz gewohnt hat in der Villa Sebastien am Meer. Könntest du ein Video über das Afrikakorps machen? Und insbesondere die starke Tunesiesche Kollaboration mit den Deutschen.
Can you do a video about how many Soldiers from the Fighting force that invaded Russia survived the war? (or more in general the soldiers of the "first hours" or the first years of the war up until barbarossa) I always wondered when I see videos or pics of that on how many of those faces never saw the end of the conflict.
Much apreciated
Overall casuality rates were 20-40% with submarine crews getting the worst of it, but I dont know how this relates to the wgole war, and does not include injured and captured jhst confirmed kia.
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 yeah, figures like that I already know.
I mean like 18 million or so were enlisted and 4-5 million or so died, but what especially interested me was the "first wehrmacht" that was that best trained and successfull army and how much of it survived the moscow and stalingrad meatgrinder and then the end of the war of course.
I could not find anything related to that via google.
@@userofusers5787 To 31.12.1944 there were, rounded up, 7 million enlisted.
So, you know from where the difference of 11 million comes from.
Soviets enlisted 36 million or so over the whole war.
Germany made many STRATEGIC mistakes, one was to not prepare for a "Totaler Krieg" like the USSR and then US did.
It was a feel-good dictatorship as long as you weren't a Jew, Gypsy or "traitor".
No 12 hour shift for children like in USSR early in the war.
Germans started 43 and really "good" output was 1944.
Too late.
Can't wait to read this book! Unfortunately my German isn't good enough, is there any chance of this book being translated into English?
I high chance as those subjects sell pretty well. But it may take a while. I know of a few german publications that were translated for Cambridge University Press and that took roughly 5 years after the original german release.
But, and this is a serious question, not an attack on Neitzel, who has done excellent work in the past; is it not just a rehash of Citino's books?
Bernard has read both, do you know Bernard?
@@PalleRasmussen It is not about the "German way of war" as prussian approach of strategy and warfare of traditional officers and more about the self image and relationship of the army to the civilian society and the political system as a whole. Especially about the long shadow of WW2 and the Wehrmacht for the Modern Bundeswehr in ( an ever increasing) contrast to the attitude of civilian society.
Probably would have to rely on something like Google Translate or paying a translator to do it properly for you.
@@krautreport202 danke sehr.
English translation of your book please!
Logistics was another issue during the Russian campaign, Which I think you mentioned in another video
And when will the book be available in English?
You mentioned a book by Philip Rhine @12:30 what is that book called?
I meant @11:48
Philips O'Brien: "How the war was won. Air-Sea-Power and the Allied Victory in WW2"
I never thought of different tech levels, just war
So we have accountants running the costs and they would prefer the enemy killed with a stone not a v2
Very good video as usual, and great that you got Prof. Neitzel!
However, I would argue against the point made at 14:40: the personnell losses on the Western Front 1944-45 actually appear to have been significantly heavier than on the Eastern Front, proportionally speaking. In Normandy, full-strength German divisions were wiped out in a matter of days, and this trend of extremely heavy losses continued into 1945 (also due to the fact that many German soldiers were more likely to desert and surrender on the Western Front). Overall, I would argue that, proportionally, the Western Front was a much heavier drain on ressources AND personnell than the Eastern Front.
Basically never fight alone
Always enjoy your videos. Some day can you answer a question I have about Austria in WW2. In general does Austria consider itself a belligerent part of Nazi Germany or a Nazi victim?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria_victim_theory
some elements are discussed in my Anschluss video
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized hmmm Anschluss :)
Entire nations rarely have monolithic opinions.
I guess you can take the official.position, ut I dont see much historical value in that.
I’m from the future, there’s now a video
Wow, ich bin begeistert! Sönke Neitzel ist der beste Kriegshistoriker, den wir in Deutschland haben.
Abgesehen davon war das Video mal wieder sehr interessant. Tatsächlich kann man vieles des Gesagten sehr gut am Geschehenen ableiten. Auch diesmal wieder ein TOP Video. Vielleicht sollte man beim Feldzug gegen Frankreich auch einzel Personen wie Rommel berücksichtigen, ebenso die Zusammenarbeit der Luft und Landstreitkräfte. Sowie die Befehlsweitergabe per Funk ( im Gegensatz zu den Franzosen in fast jedem Fahrzeug vorhanden). Letztlich war aber wohl auch das Verständnis von neueren Taktiken tragend? Also nicht nur die Luftüberlegenheit?
Die Situation zwischen 1939 und Sommer 1940 wird schon sehr gut 1995 in Friesers "Blitzkrielegende" diskutiert....
Could somebody please tell me the name of the author published by Cambridge University Press which was mentioned in this video? The first name was Philip but I can’t make out the surname. Many thanks.
the post war bomb damage surveys indicated that strategic bombing wasn't nearly as effective as the Allies had hoped. Speer also asked in his biography what if the amount of resources invested in FLAK batteries, both 88mm and 128mm cannons, had instead been devoted to anti-tank warfare in the Ostfront?
The chief benefit was it required Germany to divert limited men and resources to fighting allied bombers as Neitzel notes that the German aviation industry consumed 40% of their resources whereas tank production was only 6%.
A Stug III cost 82,500 Reichsmarks. What did it cost to produce and operate over 7000 Bf100/ME410? What if Germany industry had produced more Stug III instead of Bf110 to address the lack of anti-tank capabilities in Germany infantry divisions?
I think others have pointed this out but in both world wars, the German's put an emphasis on a few high-quality formations while most formations were composed of low quality. Everyone else instead went for a large number of average formations which was more successful.
Makes sense
How was it more successfull?
Germany got overwhelmed by a majority of enemies.
Professor Neitzel raises an interesting point, and one I hadn't heard before, about Germany pouring more resources into aviation - especially air defense - than into tank production. But I wonder how _fungible_ those resources really were. For example: certainly night fighters were expensive, but I _suspect_ it's not as simple as "a night fighter cost X times as much as a tank, so instead of one night fighter you could have had X tanks." I suspect that some of the most expensive things that went into our hypothetical "X tanks' worth" night fighter - high-performance aero engines, radar, and of course a very small but very highly trained crew - would not have translated well (if at all) to armored vehicle production.
Are you sure? Imagine if instead of using super alloys in jet engines the German Army had spent those resources doubling the service interval of their tank engines by replacing the steel valves with nickel alloy. Doubling the service interval of your tanks in an Army whose only winning units were based around tanks is freaking huge!
Who said anything about jet engines? I said "night fighters," which in 1943 means "definitely _not_ jets." So the "high performance aero engines" in question are (comparatively) large piston engines manufactured to (comparatively) tight tolerances. There aren't a lot of exotic metals or fancy alloys involved there; and while you could surely manufacture _somewhat_ more tank engines than aero engines for the same investment of steel, rubber, power, etc., it's almost certainly less than a 2:1 ratio. Even if I had been talking about jets, though, the German jet program is notorious for having to work around their _lack_ of exotic metals for fancy alloys. So you're talking about "redirecting" resources that very famously did not exist.
As an example of the kinds of things I _was_ talking about: How does reducing production of fighters, or canceling further technical development of fighters, help the Germans roll more armor plate? That's something tanks need _a lot_ of, and aircraft need _none_ of (not of the quality and thickness required for an AFV) - even the raw materials needed are completely different!
@@Philistine47 Maybe they could still stick with planes, but move them to the east and have more air superiority situations. I think, at least in terms of gathering information, denying information, it would be useful for movement of troops. Planes at least don’t get stuck in mud so they can move. And having information that 100km to the south are no tank groups, so I could focus all units to attack north during battle might be that push that can decide battle. Same with avoiding large scale encirclement.
But even with more planes, I would still avoid ideas like airlifting supplies to Stalingrad.
@@stafer3 Maybe. There's a real question of just how many aircraft Germany could practically support on the Russian front. Their logistics were already strained to - arguably _past_ - the breaking point, and aircraft need a lot of supplies, especially fuel.
And a side note: aircraft absolutely could and did get stuck in the mud, when operating from grass airstrips (which wasn't uncommon for fighter squadrons in general during WW2).
Germany certainly had to pour a huge amount into AAA art and ammo and those certainly took from the front
Are there any plans to translate "Deutsche Krieger" in English? I plan to order the german version which is available here on Amazon!
from what I know yes, but this likely will take a while.
I am so thanful for the discussion in English. Greetings from Poland.
Was there any point post operation Barbarossa where a peace treaty was actually viable? I know the allies would only accept unconditional surrender but does anyone know if their was a point Germany could have walked away with a peace deal?
the Luftwaffe lost thousands of planes on the Britain campaign and didn't make ingland reach a point of collapse so not finishing England at that moment was major mistake Hitler did in stopping the invasions plans, I think down the line, Germany suffered a lot with not having planes of the field.
Citino and Stahel would probably put the breaking point as December'41, if not June '41. Balck certainly does in his memoirs. Citino and Stahel both points out that the Wehrmacht lost more men in the second half of '41 than they had reserves (one million Vs 875000), and Balck points to both the horrific losses amongst the trained soldiers and the losses of tanks that cannot be replaced fast enough.
well, since you asked in your previous question about "rehash", you might want to read the Germany and the Second World War series, e.g., this video is based on it and it is quite old: ua-cam.com/video/caoxNSNcQZs/v-deo.html
Glad this exist. I often tell people the German Army was a Shadow of itself by 1943. It relied so much on a hand full of Strong Divisions, and milked them dry. Their campaign in 1942 kind proves it, hearing stores of Divisions having to leave some of their elements behind (fuel shortages) during their push into the Caucasus and even then many of those divisions were under strength as the few months prior to end of Operation Barbarossa wasn't enough time to recover, while at the same time resource/fuel shortages forced the 1942 Summer Offensive whether they were ready or not. Once they were out of quality forces, on top of horrible equipment/resource shortages there was nothing they could really do to win the war. Then the Summer of 43 comes along and they didn't even have the resources to launch a limited offensive, let alone a grand one like years prior, with most of their strongest divisions also being Green Divisions like the a number of the Panzer Divisions used at Kursk. The number of German Divisions kept rising but that "core" of their strength was long gone.
@darkplace28 Well to be honest, it was an organizational and doctrine issue for the Western Allies in particular. They had the equipment, vehicles, and men. Numerically the combined French and British Airforces almost matched the German Luftwaffe plane for plane if you include all the Hurricanes and Spitfires available in 1940. Issue was how they were used, where they were deployed, and a serious lack of preparedness. France had it the worst being much of their equipment including tanks were from the 1920s or earlier and they had issues getting their counters to the Spitfire/BF109 into production delaying their deployment by a few years prior meaning France didn't have many planes that could match the German BF109 or British Hurricane/Spitfire fighters. But a lot of countries fought WWII with interwar and WWI equipment even most of the German infantry divisions at the time. If I recall all the way into 1943 the Germans were also still deploying biplanes in the Mediterranean and Eastern Theaters for specific roles, like the He51 being used as a light bomber in Poland, Russia and Italy despite being a 20s era fighter plane.
@darkplace28 But the Germans also deployed anti tank rifles in 1940, almost everyone did. The Bren was no less obsolete than most LMGs if you were fortunate enough to even get a LMG. Compared to the MG34 just about all LMG/HMGs were obsolete almost regardless. So no country really even by wars end had something that was comparable to it, and the US Army wouldn't up until the 1960s even. So I wouldn't say the Bren was a handicap, but more of a "Good enough" category of a weapon similar to the American BAR, good enough for the job but not stellar.
Is Professor Neitzel’s book available in English?
it will be likely at some point from what I know
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Thank you.
Wann wird das Buch des Professors in englischer Sprache veröffentlicht?
kA, aber es sollte kommen, wird wohl 1-2 Jahre dauern.
Will can only look at what New Zealand worked on in time to training. A rifleman was 9 month's was seen as the min time need before putting in front line operation never mind combat. (British felt the USA plan to attack in 42 was mad (will one of)) German would not had the time to perform that leval of training from 41 on, if they had not forward planned for it.
Will this book displayed be available in English?
there are plans for it.
Never voluntary start a two front war.
Isn't it an advantage that the enemies are cut off from one another?
@@bjorntorlarsson Which they weren't in case of World War 2. In really "inner lines had advantages on a tactical level but as a general strategic concept in an industrialized war it did not really work. All ready in the American civil the northern anaconda strategy defeated the inner lines of the south.
@@bjorntorlarsson Tactical success off inner lines - Napoleon in the days before Waterloo where he used the inner lines to beat the not united armies of his enemies. But he lost the moments Prussians and Brits could unite. Strategic example from the same time. Napoleon fighting a 2 Front war in Spain and against Russia at the same time. It did not end well for him.
@@norbertblackrain2379 I'd argue that in Russia Napoleon didn't loose because his forces where split so that isn't a great example.
@@panosfasoul699 He had to maintain significant forces in Spain fighting Wellington and a very active insurgency. Add to this the need to protect a long shoreline. This is a situation very similar to Germany in world war 2.
Really interesting. I think people underestimate how much of an impact the UK strategic bombing was on the war and how much resources the Axis had to spend on countering it. The Allies could afford the losses from the air but Germany really couldnt, especially with oil being so precious.
The allies had such a massive resource advantage, that the, could afford to be inefficient and utilize poor strategy, yes. This does not make the poor strategy good.
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 When you look at how close Germany got to Moscow they needed to do anything they could to relieve the onslaught. Furthermore, what if Germans did revolt? A lot of suffering could have been stopped and the Allies may have been able to occupy most of Europe before the Soviets. The blame really goes on the German people.
@@rndompersn3426 The blame goes on the convenient scapegoat, which tends ro be the loser.
The fact is the allies would have been better served by sending more materiel, and potentially evsn expeditionary forces to the eastern front earlier.
Much of the soviets early losses can be attributed to their nonexistant command structure, poor communication and poor logistics.
I think that even if they spent more resources on producing tanks, not much would have changed because they already didn't have enough oil and they would have needed more spare parts, repairing facilities and better rail infrastructure to supply more ammo etc...(especially in Russia) and with partisans plus allied bombing this was unsustainable. Also more tanks= more manpower needed and probably the average tank crew experience would have significantly dropped. Then with Allied and Soviet air superiority later in the war ,supply lines were pounded and so tanks would have probably run out of ammunition anyway. Now i don't know in what percentage the Germans focused on tank production in 1939-1941 but maybe if they produced more tanks (for infantry divisions support)at those times where they still had some fuel reserves and air superiority maybe they would have gotten further and take the oil fields in the Caucasus but i don't think the Red Army would have collapsed anyway and they would have needed months to repair the oil fields and start oil production. Great video! Prof. Neitzel had some very good and interesting points and overall it was really entertaining
Question: What if Rommel& Kluge would have opened the western front in 1944, as they planned to?
It's all over by then, no fuel. So 90% of thier army is paralysed. Without air supremacy they're also almost blind. They were fighting mostly like a first world war army against enemies that were fully motorized AND outnumbered them. Breakout was impossible.
These are good points, however it was mentioned that high casualties during Eastern Front campaigns decreased professionalism and quality of average German unit. But would combat experience that these units were getting would be a counter trend and will be making these units better? These soldiers, sergeants and officers did not had enough training hours, but they were getting a lot of very real combat experience. Just comparing it to the Red Army that had lost huge part of its professional stuff in the beginning of the war and had to replenish it with fastly trained drafties. It seems that real combat experience was increasing their quality. And Red Army in 1941 and Red Army in 1944-1945 are rather different in professionalism. Why same thing has not happened to Wehrmacht?
Because the soviet union had a much bigger population. SU had the capacity to engage the German Forces while at the same time building up huge numbers of reserves. Soviets also weren't fighting on multiple fronts like Germany. Millions of German troops were occupied elsewhere that could have been used in the East. Like they said in the video, Germany did not have any time to rest and train up their reserves. Experience will make you better but trained troops have higher chances of survival which is why casualties started increasing heavily
@@hazzmati soviet union after invasion didnt enjoy that big of population advantage, compared to occupied Europe
@@user-me5oq3kl4h occupied Europe definitively had other interests than fighting for the germans. (Thank god!)
@@theonlymadmac4771 some of it had