>German 6th army command: Can we retreat and fall back to more defensible positions so we all don't freeze and have to eat each other to survive?
>Hitler: No
>Entire German 6th army command: Ok
Why was Hitler such a massochist? How could he let 250,000 men die like that? And even after all this people believe he loved the German people.
How can storm fags look up to this man? Also why was the entire 6th army cucked? Just breakout, save your men and get executed, it would have been worth it.
Other urls found in this thread:
They were attempting a break through to save them. And it was Hitler's steadfast "never retreat" policy that saved Army Group Center in 1941 west of Moscow.
It was actually the "Genius" Manstein's idea for them not to break out
Well in and around the siege ring of stalingrad there was 90 major elements(I.E Brigades/Divsions) which could were keeping the 6th army in. 6th Army hade about 20.
And as Manstein says their only chance to break out was during operation Winter storm when the 4th Panzer army got pretty close to the pocket, but even then there was no gaurantee that the starved and ammunition starved troops of 6th army were gonna make it to 4th Panzer Army and the resources needed for a full on break out attempt would take almsot a week to assemble. This Paulus thought was not gonna work since the soveits would just see the concentration of troops and go for an all out asssault and steam roll the weakly held fronts of the pocket.
Another issue was that the breakout orders were for 4th Panzer army to break through to 6th army to allow them to assume the same positions they had initally held, so breaking out wasnt really considered on Paulus part before Manstein asked him to and then he thought it would be to risky.
Then the relief attempt failed and 6th army died.
Seeing as how Manstein repeatedly asked O.K.W to give 6th army freedom of movement in the pocket and almost resigned over the 6th army not being allowed to break out, i dont think so.
The 6th army was fucked anway and there was no good defensive position west of Stalingrad anyway for many many miles.
Why do you ignore the massive concentration of soviet troops?
There were a few days after the encirclement when a breakout should have occured, but von panlus was incapable of giving the command
>panlus
You mean Paulus?
He wasnt incapable of ordering a breakout. He was incapable of disobeying Hitler.
Do Germans still blame Italians and Romanians for this fiasco?
Because Hitler viewed it as their fault if they died or got captured. Same way he didn’t care about Slavs gangraping their way through Germany in the Red Army. The people as a whole, he viewed, had failed him.
It's certainly a widely circulated meme if that's what you're asking.
Seeing as how the Italian and Romanian commanders holding the flanks specifically told German High Command that they did not have the artillery and anti-tank guns to hold the line if the Soviets decided to push with armor and mechanized. These complaints were either ignored or never gotten through high enough to matter.
why did the italians and romas have such shit equipment?
Because it's Italy and Romania, any more questions?
Italians had some good equipment, Mainly their infantry and infantry support guns tho. They focused on infantry since they didnt have economy to support the mass tank formations that germany had, you can see this in the italian tanks like the carro veloce and the P40 tanks. But italian machine guns hade some good designs and their 75mm infantry support guns were supposedly very good for their accuracy and mobility.
...
Actualy it was ((Manstein))s idea
>Literally allowing some cunt who never rose from the rank of corporal overall military command.
""""Master Race""""
>italian machine guns hade some good designs
The Breda 35 is one of the biggest pieces of shit ever made
Yea the breda 35 may not be that good, but the infantry weapons of the Italian army were pretty damn good. And a good example of a good Italian machine gun is the breda 30, which admitedly has some issues like its retarded oiling system. But in essence its a slightly worse off bren because of its limited ammunition but it has a fast reload and is accurate.
Other than that the Bretta Modello 38 is a great submachine gun, as well as the italians had impact grenades while most countries were still using regular timed grenades. Italy also has a pretty cool breach loaded light mortar and alot of decent field guns for infantry support. Their stuff just wasnt ready to fight massed tank formations(which is probably why they shouldnt have been anywhere near an open part of the eastern front.)
>Italian machine guns hade some good designs
HA
The breda was possibly the worst LMG of any armed forces, maybe only outdone by the Chauchat.
'Infantry focus' and all we have to show for it is an expensive and difficult to make SMG.
What about the obices? things like the Brixia? also the beretta 38 was a good fit for the italian industry and was mass produced in Italy during the war. So while it was more expensive and technically advanced than say a MP40 it was by no means a barrier towards equiping infantry.
>More people died in the Battle of Stalingrad than Americans in the entire war.
Why isn't the Soviets sacrifice talked about in NA.
He ordered it because the "Not one step back" order actually worked in the 41-42 winter, and got him out of an overextended trouble spot with far less losses than his advisors were predicting even with an orderly withdrawal. If it worked then, why not now?
If their equipment was so great why did their infatry get so utterly annihilated in all major engagments?
they only had high casualties because they were so fucking stupid
>when we come to a minefield our infantry attacks as if it wasnt there
>T. zhukov
>when we come to a minefield our infantry attacks as if it wasnt there
The infantry did that because soviet command reckoned that the casualties from mines would be lower than slowly advancing through a contested area under fire. That is, if a minefield is being watched by enemy machine gun and artillery positions it is better to ignore the mines and attack as usual, since you'll take more casualties going slowly across and trying to avoid the mines.
Not that guy but I've never thought of it that way
>Manstein repeatedly asked
Mostly in his memoirs written after the war.
>so we all don't freeze
So they would fall back to the same latitude in order not to freeze? While fighting in the southern most sector? user I...
According to his book Lost Victories everything is Hitlers fault. According to Hoth's book Panzer Operations, Manstein didn't want to listen to the chain of command because he disagreed with Jodl and Brauchitsch, and despite the ravings of other amateur historians who latched onto Manstein for some reason, the truth is he was well trained by not of the best character. His entire popularity is writing his book and taking advantage of the Cold war environment by blaming everything on Hitler anyways. People won't stop falling for it either.
>minefield quote is real
I knew it was bad, but I didn't realize it was that bad lmao
Because Russia has been an enemy of the US since the 1950s and arguably earlier when they turned red.
Besides they get talked about enough in there own country. American WWII history is generally about the pacific and the post D-Day landings. All we heard was that the Soviets wrecked the total shit out of Germany and it was all just a race to see whose flags would go up first.
honestly, by the time the 6th army was encircled, they were doomed no matter what happened.
Germany simply didn't have enough manpower or equipment to even advance against the encirclement after all the tanks, artillery, and soldiers they lost in Case Blue to that point.
Whatever point the OKW looked for as a possible point to break through, the Red Army simply had them outgunned, in most areas more than 3 to 1 such as in artillery and tank formations that were still in working condition.
Military History Visualized does a very thorough rundown of all the opposition Germany would've faced when attempting a breakout, and concludes that even an attempt to do so would result in an even larger disaster for the Wehrmacht.
youtube.com
Hitler and his generals likely knew this, and instead trusted the Luftwaffe's overtures to keep the 6th Army supplied by airdrop, and of course that failed too.
tl;dr, the 6th Army was fucked no matter what happened. It was a true Checkmate move on the part of the Red Army.
It makes sense, though. Better to get out of the field of fire so you can press the attack and take some casualties in process, than slowly advancing under fire and risking the entire force getting annihilated before they even reach their target.
>advance into the field of fire while walking into mines instead of finding a place to advance against a field of fire without mines
>premeditated knowledge that there's a significant mine field ahead is dropped because we need more land and NOT ONE STEP BACK
Are you retarded?
>finding a place to advance against a field of fire without mines
You can't always choose your avenue of attack, moron. There isn't always a "safe" route to take towards an intended goal. Sometimes you have no choice but to take casualties in order to capture an important objective or encircle an enemy force. If an enemy is entrenched or guarding a strategic position (rail road nexus, city, whatever) and you absolutely NEED to take it, then, ultimately, the tactical and strategic worth of this object will be weighed against the potential cost in lives and equipment in order to seize it. If it's deemed valuable enough, you attempt to seize it.
>because we need more land and NOT ONE STEP BACK
Wars are won because you deny the enemy the necessary territory, positions and forces to wage war on you. You don't just stop fighting because the upcoming fight may entail casualties, at least not in a total war scenario such as the eastern front.
>Are you retarded?
Are you?
>You can't always choose your avenue of attack
The point being that if you can, you should. You're point being fuck it Zhukov has all the medals.
>Sometimes you have no choice but to take casualties in order to capture an important objective or encircle an enemy force
That's a lot of casualties user. It's almost like they didn't care about the average soldier at all unlike every other power in the world.
>"Wars are won because you deny the enemy the necessary territory, positions"
>being this ignorant about Clausewitz
>You don't just stop fighting because the upcoming fight may entail casualties
Soviets move their troops into minefields even if it can't be helped. Then Soviets shoot their troops if they retreat because Order 227. Even tactical retreats. It almost looks like they enjoyed killing their own unnecessarily.
*can be helped
>The point being that if you can, you should.
Are you suggesting that the Soviets, when presented with two equally valid avenues of attack, consistently chose the one with mines? Can you please tell me how you arrived at this conclusion? And no, a single quote doesn't prove anything.
>You're point being fuck it Zhukov has all the medals.
No, my point is that 1) Zhukov knows a hell of a lot more about warfare than you do 2) his quote details how Soviet doctrine instructed their infantry to proceed when forced to cross a contested area that had been mined.
>That's a lot of casualties user. It's almost like they didn't care about the average soldier at all unlike every other power in the world.
One: The Eastern front was a total war. If the Soviets lost they were to be eradicated (Generalplan Ost) and their towns, cities and villages either demolished or annexed by the Germans. Sacrificing soldiers to avoid this fate is worth it, no?
>unlike every other power in the world.
You mean like the Germans cared about the soldiers of the 6th army trapped in Stalingrad? How they cared about the soldiers in the Courland pocket? In Königsberg? How they cared about every single German life that was wasted holding on to "fortress cities" that were fortresses only in name? Soldier's lives wasted in pointless counter attacks with depleted army forces when the war was undeniably lost?
>being this ignorant about Clausewitz
Tell me, who won the war? Clausewitz' followers or the, ya know, the Soviets and the western allies? Clausewitz is outdated. The German obsession with crushing pockets is what made them divert their forces towards the pocket at Kiev and Bryansk, forces that could have made the push towards Moscow before winter set in and Soviet reserves were mustered.
>It almost looks like they enjoyed killing their own unnecessarily.
Again, see above. The OKW and OKH, by your own logic, enjoyed losing troops in pointless last-stands and besieged cities.