Whatever scenario I come up with you change the conditions to give Germany the advantage.
In other words you are going to rig every possible outcome to make sure your ‘side’ wins.
The only chance Germany had would have been if she developed a nuclear powered horse for her infantry Divisions.
Even if all this fantasy scenario was true (and it was not) then all it would do was swap the words ‘Berlin’ and ‘Hiroshima’.
Either way the superior Allied technology triumphs.
an increasing premium would have been placed on optics, range finding technology, and infrared night vision. These were areas in which Germany had a decisive edge over the Allies.
The German never even came close to perfecting night vision devices. They built a system that was not able to function in the field and the Allis had IR detectors built and stored on the continent in case the Germans tried it.
Quite simply a German tank switching on its light would be instantly visible to any Allied Tabby detector.
It is like going out sniping at night and using a torch to find your well armed victim -suicide!
Just noticed the German West losses I gave earlier is for Sept 1939 to April 1945. It includes the 1940 losses, an extra 156,556.
**Heer Losses in the Polish, Norwegian, French, and Balkan Campaigns
(Organizationsabteilung d. Gen,Stb. d. OKH. 6 Feb 45, NARA T78, R414, F3226-3227
Losses in the Feldheer**
……KIA…WIA…MIA…Total
Poland …8,082…27,278…5,029…40,389
Norway …1,166…1,548 …1,091…3,805
France… 27,650…115,299…13,607… 156,556
Balkans…1,593…4,845…644…7,082
Total …38,491…148,970…20,371 …207,832
So the claims made in the Third Army book are even further off!
There are two points I’d like to address. 1) If you’re going to post casualty figures for the Germans, please cite whatever source you used.
The figures are from:
Organizationabteilung d. Gen.Stb. d. Heer, 26 Apr 45, NARA T78, R414, F3189
Heeresartz i. OKH, Gen.Stb. d. Heer/Gen.Qu., NARA T78, R414, F3228-3229
KTB d. OKW, Band IV, 1509-1511
OKW KTB, Band IV.2, p. 1515-1516
- I didn’t cite the Third Army’s exchange rate for Metz because I haven’t taken the time to look it up. If you wish to introduce the actual datum about the Metz exchange rate (as opposed to vague hints about what that exchange rate might have been), then look it up yourself, and post both the rate and a citation to your source in this thread. It’s enough for me to do the research for the points I’m making, without also being asked to do the research to support the points you’re trying to make!
Research?
All I see so far is wholesale reposting of Wiki articles!
It seems you now admit you have no firm data on these losses yet earlier you were confidently asserting that Patton’s ‘exchange ratio’ was better than for Montgomery.
As soon as I posted the actual German losses you retreat.
No comment on the fact the claimed 3rd Army figures are actualy the losses inflicted by the ENTIRE Allied Armies ?
Did a bit of checking on the 3rd Army fantasy figures.
The claim:
The enemy lost an estimated 1,280,688 captured, 144,500 killed, and 386,200 wounded, adding up to 1,811,388. By comparison, the Third Army suffered 16,596 killed, 96,241 wounded, and 26,809 missing in action for a total of 139,646 casualties. Third Army’s losses were only 12.97 percent of the German losses. That is only about 13 American soldiers for every 100 German soldiers
However the German loss figures for the same period are:
KIA……109,046
WIA…382,776
Missing…772,776
Total…1,264,282
Now obviously this does not take into account the 6 million POW’s taken by the West right at the end but the KIA/WIA numbers can be compared.
144,500 claimed v 109,046 reality
386,200 claimed v 382,776 reality
3rd Army on its own claims more German losses than were actualy recorded.
Did no other Allied Army ever get into action?
Incidently the German POW (West) numbers show:
September 1944 there were 545,756
December 1944 814,796
March 45 1,000,000
April 16th 2,000,000
May 1st 3,000,000
End of war 4,005.732
Final tally after war 6,155,732 of which 2,050,000 were classed as POW and 4,090,000 disarmed enemy personel.
over 2 million POW in April/May 1945 and 3 million April/VE Day
I note that yet again you fail to give Patton’s ‘exchange rate’ for Metz.
Is there any reason why you are unwilling to post it?
Might it not compare well against the Montgomery at Arnhem?
I presume the propaganda piece above means you will not be comparing Arhem to Patton’s attack on Metz.
Perhaps you know it was a failure and wish to stick to ythe myth Patton was ‘the best’?
You seem to like clogging up the thread with cut-and-paste articles that add nothing to the debate so I thought I would add my own distraction:
_the Lorraine campaign. It was a hard slog in rough terrain and rotten weather against a tough German foe fighting from prepared positions. In the end, it took Patton three full months to reduce resistance in the area between the Moselle and Saar rivers, an advance of only 46 miles. It was a campaign filled with personal and professional frustration for the general, and even the fall of Metz in early December, with its paltry haul of just 6,000 prisoners, did nothing to lighten the mood. In other words, Lorraine found Patton completely out of his element. If flexibility is an attribute of all great generals, then Metz was an interesting test case for Patton. How does a general built for speed, a “master-motivator and prodigious ass-kicker,” behave when things slow down?
The answer, according to John Nelson Rickard’s Patton at Bay: not very well. Getting stuck in front of the Moselle River was not Patton’s fault. He ran out of gas, a result of General Dwight D. Eisenhower’s decision in the tricky area of fuel allocation. What happened after that, however, was a different story. Despite reams of intelligence information from Ultra on down that the Germans had managed to re-form a defensive position in Lorraine, Patton persisted in his belief that the Wehrmacht was finished and would come apart at the first tap. The result was an ill-advised attempt in early September to “bull-rush” the Moselle, a series of improvised river crossings that misfired completely. German counterattacks at Pont-à-Mousson actually wiped out the tiny American bridgehead of the 317th Infantry Regiment, and the 318th barely held its own on the western (American) side of the river.
Rickard is suitably critical of this attempt to get over a major river obstacle on the fly, and indeed there is very little positive to say. Neither U.S. tanks nor armored doctrine were designed to punch through a well-defended line: They aimed at rapid exploitation of an infantry breach. The Third Army was down to half the strength it had possessed at the outset of Cobra and had to begin the Lorraine offensive without a reserve. Intelligence was inadequate, and Patton and his corps commanders seemed to have done most of their planning from Michelin highway maps. As a result, says the author, they “possessed only the vaguest idea of the extent of the Metz defensive system.” Above all, Patton continued to ignore intelligence about the German recovery, even when his staff officers were bringing it to him by the bushel. He continued to look to faraway objectives — Mainz, the West Wall, the Rhine — with unconquered Metz staring him in the face.
Certainly, there were moments of opportunity, and Rickard targets each of them vigorously. After the encirclement and fall of Nancy, the 4th Armored Division and its feisty commander, Maj. Gen. John S. Wood, had a clear path into the German rear. The overly cautious Maj. Gen. Manton S. Eddy was Wood’s corps commander, however. He soon slapped the cuffs on the 4th Armored, dispatching it hither and yon to shore up bridgeheads and to support neighboring infantry, and the moment passed._
The above is a review of the book Patton At Bay.
I ask again what was the exchange rate at Metz?
Why are you ignoring it but using Arnhem as a stick to beat Monty?
That’s better than a 9-to-1 ratio; whereas Montgomery failed to achieve even a 1-to-1 ratio in Market Garden.
You would have to know how many German POW’s 21st Army Group had in May 1945 to give an informed opinion on that. You are winging here becsause you have no like-for-like numbers.
Perhaps you could give me Patton’s exchange ratio for a specific battle How well did Patton do whilst stupidly banging his head on the walls of Metz?
I have provided the only COMPLETE quote here, question and answer. The meaning is obvious but if you want to spend hours analysing every full stop and comma to twist the meaning then be my guest.
If you check back and find the full set of figures given for 3rd Army (i.e the total of tanks destroyed ect) then you will find the numbers greatly in excess of reality.
claim: Tanks and armored cars 3,833 destroyed by aircraft
Check the number of German tanks /AC lost in the last year of the war and tell me how a small part of the Allied Army destroyed the vast majority of the knocked out vehicles. Add the tanks claimed by Patton’s TD’s (Tank destroyers with the Third Army knocked out 648 enemy tanks and 211 self propelled guns) and the figures get more fantastic.
Claim : The Third had killed, wounded, or captured some 1,811,388 enemy soldiers, six times its strength in personnel
515,205 of those were taken in the last week of the war
The 13:1 ratio you give includes the vast number of POW’s taken at the end of the war. As the Allies ended up with 5 million POW’s then you could do the same calculation for all the other Allied Generals.
The figures are hype. Consider the source and ask yourself is it partial.
As for the quotes well simply giving an author is not good enough.
When you have the full quotes and context (i.e someone being asked ‘who is the best U.S General’ is not going to say Montgomery) then you can speak with authority.
Wiki is not a credible source but a starting point for those after the full facts…
Thre quote I gave is from a respected author and complete. It has been (deliberately) altered in other books.
My quote trumps yours and the plain truth is the German Generals (or 3 of the most senior) did not say Patton was ‘the best’
Then your research was not thorough enough:
_“What did the Germans think of their Western opponents? They were diffident in expressing an opinion on this matter, but I gathered a few impressions in the course of our talks. In reference to the Allied comanders, Rundstedt said: “Montgomery and Patton were the two best that I met. Field Marshall Montgomery was very systematic. He aded: “That is alright if you have sufficient forces, and sufficent time.” Blumentritt made a similar comment. After paying tribute to the speed of Patton’s drive, he added: “Field Marshall Montgomery was the one general who never suffered a reverse. He moved like this” – Blumentritt took a series of very deliberate and short steps, putting his foot down heavily each time.” --”
The German General Talk", pp.257-58, by B.H. Liddell Hart_
The original quote above has been altered by later authors to make it look like it was about Patton alone
The Wiki article says:
_Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt summed up the predominant German view of the American general: "Patton, Rundstedt concluded simply, “he is your best.”[135]
Footnote ‘135’ states:
Hanson, Victor Davis, The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day", New York: Simon & Schuster, ISBN 0684845024 (1999), p. 13_
A third rate book is used to alter history and distort Rundstedt’s quote.
Wiki is at the mercy of those with agendas and the above is a perfect example where the original interview is ignored in favour of a garbled altered account that better fits the myth perpetuated by the Patton fan boys.
.
The figures given for 3rd Army are complete fiction and Montgomery was several steps above Patton in the food chain.
General Patton was clearly the best general the Allies had.
Not in the view of the German Generals who were asked this very question.
They ranked him equal with Montgomery!
You are now telling lies to try and salvage the reputation of the madman Hitler.
There was no forced starvation of post war Germany.
You are making it up.
Germany was the world leasder in baby killing and even the most basic google will give you dozens of photos of Germans hanging Soviet female civilians and grinning at the camers.
The dozens of photos of naked Jewish women being murdered by ordinary German soldiers show that you are blind to the crimes of the Nazis. You would have us believe it was ‘mercy killing’ because the bad Allies were slowly starving them to death.
No matter how hard you try you are nothing more than a Nazi apologist who refuses to face reality.
The aim was to kill the millions of people in the east. It was worked out before the war. Nothing you invent can change the facts.
Walked all the way without any food?
I know they thought they were superman but that does not mean they all came from Krypton!
Rubbish, pure and simple.
Yes the fiction they were to be sent to Siberia.
Perhaps you can explain how these 20 million+ plus people were to get to Siberia when Germany took all their trains, all their livestock, all their food, all their vehicles?
How are the young and the old to make a journey of several thousands miles on foot with no food?
This is just more excuse making.
The attempts to portay Germany as the innocent victim in all this are risable.
All Germany had to do was stop invading Poland and there would be no blockade.
It is also silly to claim that it was food shortages that led to the murder of millions.
Long before the war mental Adolf made no secret that he was going to kill all the Jews and take ground in Russia. There are dozens of documents where this is laid out in great detail.
The plan was to remove the population of Poland and Russia. This meant the 10’s of millions who lived there would be left to starve.
These plans were made when there were no food shortages and only the most rabid Nazi fanbois would try and claim it was unintentional.
Murder was the aim right from the start and it is sickening to see otherwise intelligent people try and claim it was all Britain’s fault.
Nazi propaganda obviously worked and feeble minded people who try and make excuses for mass murder are sick.
My inability to post links is crippling me here and I simply have not got the time to try and work round the restrictions
This is not my most important task at the moment I am afraid I am just going to have to answer in general terms.
So Germany was short of food.
To help stop the shortages she was ‘forced’ to attack Poland.
Now she had to feed the Poles as well as her own people.
Now she had to invade Russia to get food to feed the Poles.
Once in Russia she had to feed the Russians……
and on and on and on.
Can you not see the stupidity of such an argument?
If she had not invaded other countries then she would not have to feed the populations.
If she did not invade Poland she would not be blockaded and could buy food.
This is complete and utter madness and I am suprised anyone could be so gullible.
October 1941, Hitler Monologue, Führer Headquarters, in Madajczyk, Generalny, pp. 69-70.
_“The [eastern] region must lose the character of the Asiatic steppe, it must be Europeanized! It is for this purpose that we are building great highways to the southern tip of the Crime and to the Caucasus. German cities established along these roadways will stretch like a string of pearls, and around these will be German settlements. The two or three million people we need [for this program] can be found quicker than we think. We will take them from Germany, the Scandinavian lands, Western Europe, and America. Chances are that I will not live to see this, but in twenty years twenty million people will inhabit this territory. In three hundred years we will have a blossoming parkland of extraordinary beauty!
As for the people indigenous to the area, we will be sure to select those [of importance]. We will remove the destructive Jews entirely. … We will not enter Russian cities, they must die out completely.
24 October 1939, Heinrich Himmler: Geheimreden 1933 bis 1945 und andere Ansprachen. Edited by B.F. Smith and A.F. Peterson (Frankfurt/Main: Propyläen Verlag, 1974), pp. 124-125.
“When we consider the issue [of eastern people], we first have to recognize that we have already long occupied ourselves with the Polish-Slavic problem … then we must clearly conclude, and thus have I received my tasks from the Führer, that in at least in the provinces which currently belong to Germany, the problem of the Polish minority must be solved, it must be eliminated in our lifetime.
========================================
19410523 Document: *EC-126; Description: Economic Policy Directive for Economic
Organization, East, Agricultural Group, 5/23/1941. (USA 316)
must be eliminated
Document EC-126: Economic Policy Directives for Economic Organization, East, Agricultural Group [partial translation]", in Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression. Volume VII: US Government Printing Office, District of Columbia: 1947. pp. 295-298:
Dated 5/23/1941
In future, Southern Russia must turn its face towards Europe. Its food surpluses, however, will only be paid for if it purchases its industrial consumer goods from Germany, of Europe. Russian competition from the forest zone must therefore be abolished. It follows from all that has been said that the German administration in these territories may well attempt to mitigate the consequences of the famine which undoubtedly will take place, and to accelerate the return to primitive agricultural conditions. An attempt might be made to intensify cultivation in these areas by expanding the acreage under potatoes or other important food crops giving a high yield. However, these measures will not avert famine. Many tens of millions of people in this area will become redundant and will either die or have to emigrate to Siberia. Any attempt to save the population there from death by starvation by importing surpluses from the black soil zone would be at the expense of supplies to Europe. It would reduce Germany’s staying power in the war, an would undermine Germany’s and Europe’s power to resist the blockade. This must be clearly and absolutely understood._
The above was written before the invasion of Russia and whilst Germany had no food shortages at all.
It was at a time Germany could import food via Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Sweden.
A time when Germany could buy food from Russia rather than attack and starve the Russians.
Plenty more documents exist that show the plan was to deliberately starve millions of Poles and Russians by stealing their food.
It was nothing to do with a blockade.
Mazal’s willingness to rely on documentation from Soviet-controlled courts detracts significantly from his own credibility.
And your naivety and willingness to swallow wholesale right wing sources (as well as distorting Toze) shows you to be something we call a ‘useful idiot’
Here are the calorie counts given in Tooze:
Ration levels in German occupied areas in 1940/41
German soldier: 4000
German civilian: 2570
Norwegian: 1600
Czech: 1600
Belgian: 1300
French: 1300
Pole (General Government): 609 (later 938)
Polish Jew (General Government): 503 (later 369)
Belorussian Jew: 420
More:
The average German allocation was 3000 calories prewar.
2078 calories in 1942/3
1981 calories 1943/4
1671 calories 1944/5
1412 calories 1945/6
Hitler, before WW2:
_What then is the question? Only that we need grain and timber. For the grain I need space in the east; for the timber I need a colony, only one [colony]. We can survive. Our harvests in 1938 and in this year were excellent. We can survive, in spite of the triumphant cries of others that we will starve. We have achieved these harvests thanks to the persistence of our people and above all due to the use of chemical fertilizers. However, one day the soil will have had enough … What then? I cannot stand by and let my people starve. Am I not better off then in putting two million men on the battlefield, than in losing them to starvation? Perhaps there are still among the apostles of humanity (i.e., those who seek peace at any cost), those who remember 1919. I do not want to repeat that. I will not repeat that. Free trade, open borders, that is all practical, we had these things. However when everything depends upon those masters of the seas (i.e., the English), when we can be brought low by a blockade, then it is my duty to create a situation whereby by my people can live off of their own fat. That is the only question, the rest is insanity."
"I do not harbor any romantic aims. I have no wish to rule. Above all I want nothing from the West; nothing today and nothing tomorrow. I desire nothing from the thickly settled regions of the world … All of the notions that are ascribed to me by other people are inventions.
‘Everything I undertake is directed against Russia. If the West is too stupid and too blind to comprehend this I will be forced to reach an understanding with the Russians, turn and strike the West, and then after their defeat turn back against the Soviet Union with my collected strength. I need the Ukraine and with that no one can starve us out as they did in the last war.’“however, I must have a free hand in the east. To repeat: it is a question of grain and timber, which I can find only outside of Europe.”_
The people in the east were marked down as expendable long before WW2 and the blockade started
Yes anyone disputing your calumy is ‘biased’ but you are completely open minded on the subject……
The problem you have is the German plans for Russia (made long before any blockade began to have any effect and before the invasion of Russia ) specificaly state that millions of Russians and Poles were going to be denied food and thus would die of starvation.
It was policy to kill these ‘sub-humans’ and only deluded fools swallow the lie that it was forced on Germany. They were shot, gassed, worked to death or killed for sport as well as starved so who are you going to blame for the gas-chambers? The tooth fairy?
Strange that whilst the POW’S and civilians starved not one of the guards did. Seems food was only ‘in short supply’ if you were a non german.
Read of the storehouses full of food found at the concentration camps when they were liberated and tell me again food was short.
Nice of you to ignore the Polish calorie chart I gave.
You seemed very upset when the Germans only had 1500 calories but are completely unmoved the Poles got half that.
One would think you were biased…