Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front

[Werwolf]

Werwolf, how can you respect my opinion about the liberation of europe, since I've never tell you about it? And there is no need for sarcastic word like ''so-called'', which prove btw you dont have any respect for my opinion whatever is it.

My apologies if you were offended mate. I meant no disrespect. My use of "so called" was merely because I don't believe that the Germans liberated Europe either, unlike what many people are trying to say (ergo, I wasn't disagreeing with you on that point). And, of course I believe (with good faith) that anything posted in an academic forum also counts as an opinion. 

No worries, this is an academic discussion, not a flame war. There is no need to make things too personal...which we scholars of the Law refer to as argumentum ad hominem (argument against the person; i.e. character assassination), according to the lexicon of legal terms in international jurisprudence. And also, making arguments, offering dissenting opinions and constructing counter-rebuttals are actually good mental exercises. On finit toujours par mépriser ceux qui sont trop facilement de notre avis. Non? 

Saying that few war-crimes were committed by germans is Negationism, nothing less ( should I remember you that 20 millions civilians died? oh sure there are victims of soviets troops!)

We're treading on pretty dangerous ground here...I wasn't negating anything nor was I acting in any capacity as an apologist for Nazi atrocities. This is just a simple CoH forum, not a petition board for the Simon Wiesenthal Center. I was merely trying to balance the argument by not making unfounded hasty generalizations (e.g. "ALL Wehrmacht soldiers wanted to slaughter and occupy Europe"). The Blitzkrieg/occupation in Europe may have been illegal, but it doesn't follow nor prove that EVERYONE who was involved in it was evil...hence, it would be a non sequitur in my book. Just an honest clarification, nothing more.

________________


Okay people, first and foremost, IMHO WW2 wasn't a war of liberation, it was a war of retaliation which gathered steam when the first landser stepped on Polish soil and bombs started falling on Britain. It was a war to reclaim old territory, gain new ones, and to assuage wounded national pride left over after WW1. It was a war based on a pretext created to justify the invasion and occupation of neighboring European states. Therefore, in a sense, the war was illegal given that the evidence (staged attacks and falsified reports)---and the means used (retaliatory invasion) to justify it---was illegal.

However, the means used by the Allies in occupying Europe were also illegal, since as per the Potsdam Conference they willingly allowed the Soviets to hold onto territory they were certainly not entitled to (and which they [Western Allies] certainly weren't in any position to decide for themselves!) ...which was a big mistake on their part, esp. during the Cold War as the majority of those occupied states eventually formed the bulk of the Warsaw Pact. 

EDIT: As a matter of fact, America used the same pretext to justify the invasion of Iraq (fake WMD sites and inaccurate/falsified intelligence). They used a modified version of "Lebensraum" to get an iron grip on the oil monopoly AND to eliminate a perceived threat (Saddam Hussein). Hence, the American occupation of Iraq is also illegal, based on the same principle.

________________


That said, despite the fact that Germany was certainly the most advanced nation of its time, it obviously lost due to many factors which precipitated its downfall (I will not elaborate because many others have said this way better than I ever could ), but the MAIN reason was also because the Nazis were logistically flawed, despite their "efficiency" in all other aspects. 
Post Merge: July 18, 2010, 08:38:24 AM

Werwolf, how can you respect my opinion about the liberation of europe, since I've never tell you about it? And there is no need for sarcastic word like ''so-called'', which prove btw you dont have any respect for my opinion whatever is it.

And yes, Germany was way more racist than stalinist USSR, since the elimination of a class dont necessary need to kill people. However Germany's purpose was to slaughter millions of people, and to create a Europe where all country woulds be a slave of Germany. And if NKVD killed certainly more people than germans in USSR, its probably because they had far more time to do this. Think about this.

Again, germans troops committed atrocities in all the East. Not only Einsatzgruppen. Saying that few war-crimes were committed by germans is Negationism, nothing less ( should I remember you that 20 millions civilians died? oh sure there are victims of soviets troops!). And germans were NEVER being judged by any tribunal, since the whole army was in USSR to kill and enslave everybody. Soviets were rarely judged for war-crimes, but they were, since they didnt fought any ''sub-humans'' or others. And thoses who committed rape in Berlin, right after the victory, were judged and many of them were executed.

Edit: Does sure not apply for every soldier, there was light and shadow on both sides. But i'm sick and tired of this Bad Germans - Glorious Soviets thing.

And I'm sick of germanophiles who are obliged to glorify germans. For many people in this forum, it seem that germans were noble soldier, who didnt make any atrocities/war-crimes, and who bravely fought the soviet agressor, and who were more brave, more strong... and such. Please, stop this guy, and lets come back to a rationnal discussion. I'm not a germanophobist, I think germany is a great country like many others ( yes, like russia for example!), but some things said here are crazy.

Like you said guys, Cheers, and hope thats not the beginning of a flame war.

Dear Red_Stinger,

it ain't about playing down germany's crimes. On both sides most soldiers were only fighting for their country, but there were also black sheeps on both sides. And in this Forum in my eyes some people(i don't mean specially you, it's more some other people) demonize ALL Germans as murderers and at the same time they only say how great Soviet Union was. I'm not germanophile i only want that things are objective(don't know if this word makes sense in english).

Edit:
Btw it doesn't matter if stalin or hitler killed more. Slaughter of Millions is Slaughter of Millions. I mean if one killed xMillions and the other killed yMillions it doesn't matter that much, in this scale of numbers there is no difference about who was how bad.

+1

I agree. Slaughter will always be slaughter, no matter how many times people sugar-coat them, provide excuses and sweep them under the rug.

War is heck.

[AbhMkh]

Adolf Hitler was psycho maniac who did not know what he wanted , his ideologies which were derived from emotion inspired weren't practical at all , he was neither a brilliant strategist nor a prudent leader , he and his third reich with men like

hans von groebel

the geinham statpolize or the gestapo cheif(i dont remember his name)

and the SS generals were all mad fanaticists


Their own imprudence led them to the path of devastation , especially on the easter front

Millitary ambitions are allright , but what abt the jews , I dont have to repeat history but this clearly proved that he was a madman with no sense of military strategy , thats why , the third reich were not liberators they were lunatics , and i don't know why the german people believed in him


Ny ways to sum up

1. No sense of military strategy
2. T-34

3 . Underestimation of the soviet climate

as somebody said afore the same mistake was made by napolean in his conquest of russia but hitler didnt realize that he was too proud of "German Engineering"

[maxi1991]

2. T-34

T-34 is overestimated. IT'S JUST A GOOD SOLID TANK but not more.

[Werwolf]

hans von groebel

the geinham statpolize or the gestapo cheif(i dont remember his name)

and the SS generals were all mad fanaticists

Just a few corrections:

- Hans von Gröbel is a fictional character from Codename: Panzers. 
- as for the Gestapo Chief(s), you're either referring to SS-Gruppenführer und Generalleutnant der Polizei Heinrich Müller, or his immediate superior Reinhard Heydrich, Stellvertretender Reichsprotektor of Bohemia and Moravia (who was, ironically, a Jew).
- fanaticists >> fanatics.
- geinham statpolize cheif >> Geheime Staatspolizei (Gestapo) Chief.

Cheers, mate

[Seeme]

What do you mean? Hans von Grobel was really and he PWN.

Hes, like, the bets person in the world! He killed 2000 tounsand men!!! Who are you to think hes not real?
 
Lol JK

[AbhMkh]

I'm sorry abt the spellings, i was feeling a bit sleepy when i wrote this.....

I was actually referring to the German propaganda minister(he was something Hans Von...)

You seem to be German werewolf , otherwise no one makes such fine corrections to the "German spellings"

and yeah its fanatics , lool, happens to many of us , getting even the most simplest spellings wrong


As to the T-34 it is one of the major reasons of the Germans loosing the war , it made a super power out of Russia later on....

[Tico_1990]

You are talking about Joseph Goebbels. Also, one doesn't necessarily need to be German to be able to speak it, just saying
As for the T-34, it is indeed overrated. It was crude, it was cramped, half of the gunners lost their arm apparently (I realise it's probably less, but I was just trying to prove a point).
If you want a reason why the T-34 performed so well against German tanks, well, here's one for you: German tanks didn't work in general because the oil in their motors froze.
I'm not trying to say that the T-34 was a rust bucket, but just as not each German is a Jew killing insane nazi, and just as not each Russian is a alcoholic communist, the T-34 wasn't the "z0mg uber god pwwnage tank" (sorry, I suck at slang). Did it outgun the German tanks, yes, to a large degree, it most likely did. Was the T-34 better on the Eastern front than the German tanks, yes, most likely. But here's something to take into consideration. The T-34 for a very large part of the war, fought on own ground. It fought on terrain, that was taken into account when it was designed. Of course it performed well. Also, they were produced in larger numbers (I think) than the German tanks.
What I want to see is a fair test to be done with both tanks. Also, 'historical' arguments like: "but Russia won the war and Germany had no tanks left so the T-34 must have been better" are complete and utter BS.

Sorry if the post is a bit fiery/enthusiastic, I'm a history student and I'm not particularly fond of it when in my opinion, History is being raped.

Cheers

[AbhMkh]

Yes u told me that you were a history grad so i respect your opinions but you see Tico , the t-34 was a simple robust and easy to maintain tank , Its armor design was revolutionary and it could be easily produced in large numbers

I'd actually seen an interview of an old panther tank commander(he had practically lost all of his teeth )

He himself confessed that the t-34 was a formidable and excellent tank(his actual words were " i had never had seen a tank like this before , the shell we fired just slipped of the front armor , it was the best tank that we had ever faced")

The t-34 used a old design V-12 from a world war 1 plane and was robust and easy to mantain, whereas the german panther had sophisticated and complicated engineering built into it hence it was prone to breakdowns.

as to my comments on jew killing nazis , i didnt say every german was a jew killing nazi , all i had said that Hitlers ideologies were followed by his men , the german millitary or the wehrmacht were soldiers they simply followed orders to believe or not to believe was not their concern

And as to werewolf i read abt his post on the German army patches, no one knows abt the ranks and patches so much unless he has seen it with his eyes


Cheers!!

[Tico_1990]

Indeed, it was robust, easy to maintain and easy to mass produce, but does that instantly mean that it's a good tank?
I will of course agree with you that the T-34 had a revolutionary design, still though, fire at it in the right place and you can still crack it wide open (the place where the turret connects to the hull for example). Also, please note that your tank commander says: "the best tank we ever faced". This does not by definition mean that it's a good tank.

As for using a V12 engine from a World war I plane, I find that hard to believe, mostly because of the fact that mechanised flight was still a new thing and that to the best of my knowledge, planes were equiped with rotary engines, definately nog V12's.

Also, I didn't mean to say that you said that all Germans are jew killing nazi's. I just used it as a way of saying that people in general generalise stuff and that this, in my opinion, is also done with the T-34

Cheers

[AbhMkh]

"Whatever" , as to the engine thing i saw it on TV , thts why i tell you and now tht you say i remember i saw it on discovery too , if u ever get a chance to see tht particular show again , just confirm it

[GodlikeDennis]

I just have to ask, AbhMkh; Why do you always comment on somone's nationality?

[AbhMkh]

Hey no offense dude , i'm just a bit inquisitive , thats it nothing more

[Seeme]

How is everyone here a history gratuate or expert etc.?

[AbhMkh]

lol seeme , no tico had mentioned in a post afore tht he had studied history in college

[Crezth]

I'd actually seen an interview of an old panther tank commander(he had practically lost all of his teeth )

He himself confessed that the t-34 was a formidable and excellent tank(his actual words were " i had never had seen a tank like this before , the shell we fired just slipped of the front armor , it was the best tank that we had ever faced")

The t-34 used a old design V-12 from a world war 1 plane and was robust and easy to mantain, whereas the german panther had sophisticated and complicated engineering built into it hence it was prone to breakdowns.

I find this all hard to believe. Not only is the Panther commander story far-fetched (Panthers outperformed T-34s in every conceivable way) but the specs are wrong: it was the V-2 engine, not the V-12, and the V-2 was not used in any WW1 planes.

Tico's absolutely right, the T-34 had a lot of very good ideas (sloped armor among them) but it was not the be-all end-all tank, and certainly not the one reason the Soviets reigned supreme at the end of the war.