PDA

View Full Version : How can this be possible



jugent
12-22-2005, 02:57 PM
All along the war according to statistic figures,
based on reports of period of 6 months, the german army took more prisoners than the red army.
This is very odd, because a army on offensive takes more prisoners than on on defence.
Odd isnt it

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-22-2005, 03:11 PM
Dates?

p1ngu666
12-22-2005, 03:12 PM
many germans prefered to fight to the death, for numous reasons.

for the SS guys, alot had done some rather nasty things :\ so for them being captured wasnt a option...

SlickStick
12-22-2005, 03:17 PM
Wouldn't some of the reason also be sheer numbers?!? The Russians had the highest casualty rate of WWII, which would lead me to believe that there were probably more soldiers to capture??

Taylortony
12-22-2005, 04:03 PM
Not totally true, I have a book somewhere that is frightening, the Russians would work out distance to a German trench............ send a reccy in and see how many guns the Germans had... work out their maximum rate of fire per minute.............. work out how many minutes to cross the distance to the trench, times them together to end up with say a figure of 12,000 then send 14,000 troops over the top, that way if the Germans killed 1 man per round 2,000 troops would arrive at the other side and you could never win................ simple maths I am afraid, also they had people following up behind to shoot those that didn't go forward. If you were found guilty of not advancing you would joing a punishment brigade that would march across minefields.....detonate one and if you survived you would have served your time in a penal battalion ....... even modern troops when I was in the RAF were taught in attack, we do not feed you, the enemy, ( little old me in a trench with a musket) had the food you needed......... mind you having eaten Compo, I would have given it to them Gladly, I bet those that survived Katrina that ate our rations we sent probably still haven't been to the toilet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Chuck_Older
12-22-2005, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by jugent:
All along the war according to statistic figures,
based on reports of period of 6 months, the german army took more prisoners than the red army.
This is very odd, because a army on offensive takes more prisoners than on on defence.
Odd isnt it

Why is it odd? Germany wasn't always on the defensive

jugent
12-24-2005, 04:11 PM
My figures comes from a scientifical work, Kursk 1943, A statistical Analyses (Frank Cass) London.
They state figures mainly from "Operation Zitadelle" and througout the war, and from that period Wehrmacht was on defensive, but made some tactical and operative offensives, but only a few can at best be described as strategical, like the offensive of the Lake of Balaton.

The losses in POW, counted in % was lower for german forces than for russians, so it wasnt because the red army was in superior numbers

The losses to death was lower than for russian forces so it wasnt because the german stayed and get killed. In fact wehrmacht was the force where there where the closest bounds between officers and men in the WWII. I dont know so much about the chineese and japanese forces, and some minor forces like Free French or the Polish forces.

And what you describe, Taylortony is the way Montgomery planned his battle, like there is 7 PAK on each 1000m front, if we shall attack with a regiment of 120 tanks on that area, there must be fewer than 5 in this area, to kill to out of 7 we must shoot 25 ton of artillery....
The field manual of the Brittish army said that fire was the most important thing to achieve. Armour and movement was only a way to bring the gun to the front.
Red army and Wehrmacht belived that movement was the most important thing in battle.

In all other theatre of war, a force on offensive loose fewer units to POW because they dont risk to encircled so often as the defensives does.
The forces from the soviet union wasnt well threated either, they learned to expect no mercy from the axis forces, if captured, so they fought to the last round many times, but surprisingly they gave up and gave themselves prisoner.

p1ngu666
12-24-2005, 04:22 PM
ive read similer tony, but it was what the germans thought the russians where doing..

the russian commanders where often afriad todo different http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

human wave tatics. later on the russians became better

Kocur_
12-24-2005, 05:16 PM
Its quite simple: Red Army soldiers were defecting to German side in considerable numbers even late in the war. It was always an attractive option for people trapped between Germans shooting in their faces and soviet 'barrier troops' shooting in their backs...

VW-IceFire
12-24-2005, 06:00 PM
If you're looking at totals...LARGE (and I mean LARGE) numbers of Red Army troops were encircled and captured during Barbarossa. They simply were not yet ready.

p1ngu666
12-24-2005, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Its quite simple: Red Army soldiers were defecting to German side in considerable numbers even late in the war. It was always an attractive option for people trapped between Germans shooting in their faces and soviet 'barrier troops' shooting in their backs...

indeed, some even defected in berlin http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif, i do wonder why they did it.. especialy in berlin

Xiolablu3
12-24-2005, 06:43 PM
The German armies tactic was basically one of encirclement when they were on the offensive, using blitzkreig tactics they encircled hundreds of thousands of Russian troops when they were attacking.

The fact is that the Russian civilians were caught between 2 dictators, Stalin hadnt exactly treated some of them well, confiscating large amounts of food and causing a famine.

Many Soviets thought that the Germans were actually liberators, and therefore would be willing to surrender/fight for them.

Polish people still tend ot hate the Russians, for what they did at the end of the war and even before. I am sure many of them would rather have kept the Germans as occupiers.

p1ngu666
12-24-2005, 08:01 PM
indeed xio, but the way the occupied areas where run turned those in them against the germans. they where infact worse than stalin mostly, which a consirable achivement http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif, not good one ofcourse.

LStarosta
12-24-2005, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Polish people still tend ot hate the Russians, for what they did at the end of the war and even before. I am sure many of them would rather have kept the Germans as occupiers.

Learn to speak for yourself.

That is the biggest crock of horses#it ever.

Hate Russians? Sure. Prefer Germans? No effin way.

Xiolablu3
12-24-2005, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Polish people still tend ot hate the Russians, for what they did at the end of the war and even before. I am sure many of them would rather have kept the Germans as occupiers.

Learn to speak for yourself.

That is the biggest crock of horses#it ever.

Hate Russians? Sure. Prefer Germans? No effin way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



I apologise, I should have written 'some' polish people, I thought I had done.

The Polish people who I have flown with seem to hate flying Russian, maybe I read too much into it.


If you are Polish and know otherwise then I stand corrected. Please tell me how it really is. I do not know everything, and am ready to know the truth.

'I would have thought' (<please stress this point) that there were facsist Polish people, just like there were Communist Polish people and therefore the facsists would prefer the German rule.

HotelBushranger
12-24-2005, 08:29 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Good man

LStarosta
12-24-2005, 08:42 PM
I'm not doubting the fact that most Poles do not look upon Russia with a favorable eye.

I'm just saying that to say that Poles as a whole would prefer Nazi control to Soviet control is preposterous.

Look at how many Poles were killed under Nazi domination in just six years of war, and how many were killed by Soviets in 45 years of domination. The Soviets were AWFUL, no doubt. But the Germans were even worse.


I am still puzzled by your comment:

"'I would have thought' (<please stress this point) that there were facsist Polish people, just like there were Communist Polish people and therefore the facsists would prefer the German rule."

I'm not aware of any fascist (or communist, for that matter) majorities in Poland in the immediate post-war period. While there were pro-German sympathizers, and pro-Soviet sympathizers, they in no way represented a majority of Poland. I think what Poles would have preferred most was neither German rule, nor Soviet rule, but rather self rule.

jugent
12-25-2005, 04:15 AM
It is remarkable that altough red army performed very largscale offensives and made strategical breakthroughs, encircled armies, they got more deflectors than Wermacht, counted over 6 months period. Wermacht got many "foreign legions" like Waffen SS from Nederlands, France, Spain and Denmark, as well as from Balkans and doubtful allies like Romania, Bulgaria.

They must have been more villing to deflect the longer the war continued, why die for a lost sake?
The answer to this according to the writers is that different languages, bad connections, rigid chain of orders and the german counterattacks forced many red units to deflect. And the good organised retreats by wehrmacht minimized the loss of POW.

ImpStarDuece
12-25-2005, 04:41 AM
Also the fact that the more 'civilised' Germans tended to promise good treatment for Russian prisoners (which was, of course, not true), while the Russians tended only to promise death and/or internment in a slave labour camp for the Germans.

Combined with that you have a few socio-cultural and other factors. Insufficient training and indoctrination by many Russian units compared to their German counterparts, a generally poor co-ordination between officers and lower ranks, and a far more rigid chain of decison making (well trained German army units had probably the finest individual initiative of any combat units of the war) meaning that the troops had fewer options in the face of defeat and its probably understandable.

P.S. Can you provide the figures of prisoners taken? Also the relative sizes of the opposing forces?

p1ngu666
12-25-2005, 07:01 AM
thats true imp, fighting against the japanease, once the allies learned of what happened to prisoniers they wouldnt surrender, probably better to die http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

the mistreatment of prisoniers on the mainland was almost certainly partly due to the supply situation being dire, japanease troops where in a bad way..

alert_1
12-25-2005, 09:31 AM
Its quite simple: Red Army soldiers were defecting to German side in considerable numbers even late in the war. It was always an attractive option for people trapped between Germans shooting in their faces and soviet 'barrier troops' shooting in their backs...

Sad, but very, very true....till the victorious end..

jugent
12-25-2005, 01:29 PM
Theese two figures matches statistics from booth German and Soviet archives.

In 1945 wehrmacht registrated that they took 34500 pow at the east-front.
At the period 1th of October 1943 to 1th of januar 1944 wehrmacht reported 54000 MIA from their own forces counted of 2.500.000 men.


The political indoctrination and the numbers of execution of own soldiers dont seem to make the troops be less motivated to give up.

Soviet Union did have the highest precentage of execution of their own soldiers, and the highest degree of political training, and also the biggest precentage of deflection.
German, US and GB lost aprox 1% to deflection all out the war, USSR lost 10% as deflected during the battle of Kursk. The 10% is not recognized by the Soviet archives.

The stronges motivation for fighting is that you wont let you comerades down.

ImpStarDuece
12-25-2005, 03:03 PM
Yes, but you have to put that into context.

If your living in a totalitarian nation, which has outlawed your major religious belief, in quite poor conditions with minimal education and very little indocrtination, or even access to a national media, limited political and social awareness and little experiance with foreigners you are probably going to be:

a) easily swayed by propaganda (from both sides)
b) either unhappy or not satisfied with the situation you are forced into.
c) a victim of the 'grass is always greener' syndrome

Take the lot of the typical Soviet infantry-man, circa 1943. You are conscripted and then thrown into battle, usually without sufficient training. Retreat is threatened with execution or a trip to the gulag if you are insubordinate. NKVD battalions actually used to set up machine guns at the rear of conscript divisions to prevent retreats (ie, the enemy MAY kill you wen you advance, but if you retreat we CERTAINLY will). Your officers are a chaotic mix of NKVD plants, political commisars, geniune heros with remarkable bravery and/or skill and genuine incompetents. Supplies are often isufficient and your enemy appears to be better equipped, better led and beter motivated. As an infantry-man in a regular army division, you are, even in the worst WW1 sense of the word, cannon-fodder and little more. It was the exceptional bravery of the Soviet infantry man which remains perhaps the outstanding feature of the Russian war effort in WW2, but even brave men have breaking points.

The Soviet propaganda machine really hasn't spooled up until mid-1943, so many of the troops don't believe in what they are fighting for, perhaps really don't believe that they could win. Communism is still suffering from the heavy hands of Stalin and Beria, who have more in common with power hungry mass murders than they do with Communism in the Marxist-Leninist perspective. The shift to offensive operations has really only just begun, Lend-lease is really only now being felt, but is still not enough to make a real difference yet.

Compare this to the average German solider in 1943. A conscript, yes. But a better indoctrinated conscript. The effectiveness of german propaganda in reducing the "pan-Slavic hordes" into "untermenschen" (sub-humans) cannot be underestimated. Even given the high level of political and social sophisitcation of a German soldier compared to a Russian on, Gobbels was the first true propaganda genius of the 20th century. German national media has had 9 years to effectively spread its message. A German conscript is better trained and generally more ably led. He has generally higher levels of motivation, both from within his own army and externally because of the treatment he feels he will recieve if he surrenders. His equipment is generally better, he is still regarded as a thinking, fighting solider, not someone fill a uniform and hold a rifle.

A more interesting and relevant comparison would be to compare the levels of surrender of regular German troops to Guards army units in the Soviet army. Better trained, better equipped and generally better supplied and led, a Guards unit is, in terms of effectiveness and organisational pricniples, roughly similar to a German infantry division.

Kocur_
12-25-2005, 03:50 PM
Good post ImpStarDuece, but I cant agree here:

The Soviet propaganda machine really hasn't spooled up until mid-1943, so many of the troops don't believe in what they are fighting for, perhaps really don't believe that they could win.

"Proshla zima, nastupilos' leto
Sposiba Stalinu za eto!" *

LOTS, LOTS of propaganda in everyday of life of people in SU ever since 'revolution'. And generations which were most severily blooded in the war spent all their lives in communist state, with indoctrination all the way from kindergarten! Much more intense, much more common than in nazi Germany. And soviet media were full of war-coming tones since 1939. It was suggesting that great war is coming, and genius of comrade Stalin will assure victory. After nazi invasion there was less ideological and more patriotic tones: Pavka Morozov was replaced by Alexander Nevski.
Still propaganda is one, and reality you see around you is another. Running forward seeing piles of bodies of guys who attacked in previous waves and knowing that there are heroes from NKVD Barrier Troops with fingers on triggers of mgs pointed in your back, must have made surrendering to Germans a good option - no matter what your school teachers, party activists in your workplace and politruks in the army told you! Even in 1945!

*
"Winter is gone, summer has come
Lets thank Stalin for that"

- from primary school book

p1ngu666
12-25-2005, 05:00 PM
both sides where heavily indoctrinated, the russian propaganda swung from communist stuff which wasnt that effective, to more nationalistic..

and yes kocur, seeing the dead bodies of previous attack, and u are repeating the same mistake... same with japanease troops, just chucking men away stupidly.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-25-2005, 05:18 PM
Go to library, find history section 940 (Dewey system), take out 'Stalingrad' and 'Berlin' by Anthony Beevor. Lots of information.

jugent
12-26-2005, 04:30 AM
All investigations says the same thing; Progaganda and political rethoric has nothing to do with motivation for fighting.

The Red Army was forced to recruit soldiers from all parts of the union, and the official language was russish.
If some young men dont understand the commands its easy to feel lonly and not a member of the comerades, and than its easy to deflect or be forgotten by the others.
Anthony Beevor is a splendid writer, but I lack notes that tells where he got the information from.

Dont think that people are fools, if your standard of living is low, and you see that political clerks "The nomenklatura" has better living conditions, no propaganda like "you live in the best of nations" is taken on ernest, they will be jokes.

"Once comrade Brezjnev wisited a Kolchos and fell into a basin where all the dung from the animals where stored. One worker saved him and drag him up from the stinking porridge.

Brezjnev said to the worker
-I would be pleased if you told no one about this.

The worker answered
-I would be pleased if you told no one either"

Humour is a way to coope with propaganda.

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-26-2005, 05:38 AM
Anthony Beevor is a splendid writer, but I lack notes that tells where he got the information from.

Is there not a section between the last chapter and the index entitled 'Sources and references' or 'Bibliography'? Just a thought.