Re: Interesting historical blunders - 10/23/2009:17 AM
Another blunder pertaining to this case. Imprisoned in Canada, Oberleutnant Armin Faber the hapless pilot managed to persuade the authorities that he suffered from epilepsy and was therefore repatriated in 1944, whereupon he returned to front-line fighter operations.
Re: Interesting historical blunders - 10/23/2010:53 AM
The blunder that immediately comes to my mind is the friendly fire incident at the Battle of Chancellorsville where Stonewall Jackson was mistakenly shot and eventually killed by Confederate forces. The battle was a huge victory for the Confederacy but the loss of Jackson was crippling at the strategic level.
Another blunder pertaining to this case. Imprisoned in Canada, Oberleutnant Armin Faber the hapless pilot managed to persuade the authorities that he suffered from epilepsy and was therefore repatriated in 1944, whereupon he returned to front-line fighter operations.
Really? Google him and what I found said he spent the rest of the war in a POW camp in Canada.
Another blunder pertaining to this case. Imprisoned in Canada, Oberleutnant Armin Faber the hapless pilot managed to persuade the authorities that he suffered from epilepsy and was therefore repatriated in 1944, whereupon he returned to front-line fighter operations.
Really? Google him and what I found said he spent the rest of the war in a POW camp in Canada.
Wiki: As a prisoner of war, Faber was sent to Canada where he attempted to escape from the prisoner camp. He was repatriated just before the end of the war due to ill health.
He was repatriated just before the end of the war due to ill health.
And yet he was still put into front line fighter operations before it was all over? Man, that crumbling Third Reich was still quite fast and efficient wasn't it?
The legless Douglas Bader tied sheets together and climbed out of a hospital window and crawled away. He was caught later that day, but still that has to be embarrassing for his guard(s) at the hospital.
The legless Douglas Bader tied sheets together and climbed out of a hospital window and crawled away. He was caught later that day, but still that has to be embarrassing for his guard(s) at the hospital.
He was involved in numerous escape attempts up to the end, helping with the glider at Colditz.
The blunder that immediately comes to my mind is the friendly fire incident at the Battle of Chancellorsville where Stonewall Jackson was mistakenly shot and eventually killed by Confederate forces. The battle was a huge victory for the Confederacy but the loss of Jackson was crippling at the strategic level.
That incident turned the tide of the war in the North's favor, from which the South could never recover.
So many blunders in military history. I can think of a zillion as most here can as well. I recall reading of a trooper at Bastogne, I believe it was, who went to retrieve his BAR that had been laid atop a stack of weapons of the other troopers who had climbed in the back of the deuce and a half. As they were disembarking, he grabbed the muzzle to slide it off the pile , but a bolt from a Springfield caught in the trigger guard, pulling the trigger and shooting him in the chest, dead.
For me though the one that troubles me as much as any other is Bull's Run at Leyte. It was such a monumental blunder, and so obvious that he was going after a decoy. That it happened at all is shocking to this day. And not only were there heavy, completely avoidable losses of men and ships, as tragic a consequence as that is, it robbed us armchair historians of the showdown between Musashi (if she had survived in this alternate history), Yamato and the Iowas.
I completely understand that wishing for death and destruction is reprehensible in the modern sensibility, and don't wish to argue that point and I reckon the folks around here understand where I am coming from. But this is the pinnacle of my naval curiosity, and to have had this clash of the Center Force and Task Force 34 occur would have been fascinating from that point of view. I know what I think would have happened, as I have debated it and voiced my view countless times through the years. From a clinical perspective though I feel like Halsey robbed those of us who are interested in this, the chance to know the outcome and settle the debate through his own stupidity, vainglory and arrogance. For me Halsey swept away his legacy with one of history's most blatant blunders. The world wonders, indeed!
Bader was certainly a very brave man, but to this day he remains unpopular within the RAF for his arrogance, misguided “Big Wing” strategy, and above all for his internal politicking (as a mere sqn ldr) which led to the ouster of the architects of our Battle of Britain victory, ACM Dowding and AVM Park.
I remember my dad talking about that, he was on his way there in a Liberty ship when it happened.
Thanks and that's interesting he was there, or nearly so.
Halsey's blunder has been debated for a long time. It's often argued that he was only following his Academy training, the maxim to never divide your forces. That's sound advice. But Third Fleet was massive, so powerful in fact that I bet it alone was stronger than any one nation's entire navy, let alone a single fleet. Halsey could have chosen to detach TF 34 and still had a fleet more than capable of taking on Ozawa. In essence handling both tasks, without undue risk. But it's also often said that doing so would have removed Halsey from the carrier battle, his career-long desire, since he was embarked on New Jersey, and there was no guarantee that the First Striking Force would actually try to force San Bernardino Strait, possibly leaving Halsey without a battle at all.
But the Japanese did indeed come on, and with TF 34 not standing guard as they were off with Halsey, the rest is history. The entire affair is a mess of poor communication, lack of attention to details, mistaken assumptions, muddled command structure and at the top of the list is one man's search for his place in history. In my view he found it, but not perhaps as he would have wanted.
I said he swept away his legacy, and I know others will disagree with this point. He had accomplished much leading up to this. But combine this with his penchant for driving his fleets in to typhoons and I think his legacy is ruined. The blunder off Samar was so severe that it overshadows all he did before. He deserved all the criticism in my view. Halsey does seem to enjoy a good reputation today. In some way he is like Zhukov to me, a man whose legacy outshines his accomplishments, force of personality overcoming a middling ability.
As far as "Bulls Run" is concerned, you do have to remember that Halsey was in part reacting to criticism that had come the way of Spruance for not pursuing and destroying the Japanese carrier fleet at Philippine Sea.
As for the the 3rd Fleet handling both threats, we do have to be careful of using too much hindsight. American experience in 1942 and 1943 had shown a small strikes or even single aircraft could do significant damage to carriers, and Halsey could not be sure the decoy force was as toothless as it was in reality.
True, and it has been said that things would have worked out much better if the commanders had been reversed for those two engagements. Probably true really.
Well - the blunder did rob us of a battleship showdown. But instead we had Yamato and the entire battleline pretty much sent packing by half a dozen tin cans & a handful of planes in a show of bravery that doesn't get the recognition it deserves.
Can't help but believe that having Lee's battleships around wouldn't have made it much more enjoyable for the IJN ^^
Well - the blunder did rob us of a battleship showdown. But instead we had Yamato and the entire battleline pretty much sent packing by half a dozen tin cans & a handful of planes in a show of bravery that doesn't get the recognition it deserves.
Can't help but believe that having Lee's battleships around wouldn't have made it much more enjoyable for the IJN ^^
Agreed. Few military subjects interest me more than Leyte, and I'm happy to have steered some discussion in this direction. You bring up an interesting point Admiral. Some argue that had the battle taken place with Lee that the Japanese would have made a better account of themselves since Kurita's general attack order in the battle with Taffy 3 was the root cause of their failure to inflict a more punishing blow. They argue that a meeting of the battle lines would have seen more order and effectiveness from the Japanese fleet.
Without getting in to my analysis of the missed clash, I find it doubtful, but not without some merit. At the very least I think if Lee and Kurita had indeed met at the strait that the Japanese would have deployed their destroyers more effectively than they did in the battle with Sprague, and that would have made an impression.
Bader was certainly a very brave man, but to this day he remains unpopular within the RAF for his arrogance, misguided “Big Wing” strategy, and above all for his internal politicking (as a mere sqn ldr) which led to the ouster of the architects of our Battle of Britain victory, ACM Dowding and AVM Park.
Have you ever seen this? It gets really interesting at the 28:17 mark.
Re: Interesting historical blunders - 10/25/2001:11 AM
Originally Posted by PanzerMeyer
Originally Posted by Mike Dora
Bader was certainly a very brave man, but to this day he remains unpopular within the RAF for his arrogance, misguided “Big Wing” strategy, and above all for his internal politicking (as a mere sqn ldr) which led to the ouster of the architects of our Battle of Britain victory, ACM Dowding and AVM Park.
Have you ever seen this? It gets really interesting at the 28:17 mark.
Sadly this was recorded only a few months before Baders death.
Re: Interesting historical blunders - 10/25/2010:52 AM
Originally Posted by DBond
Originally Posted by The_Admiral
Well - the blunder did rob us of a battleship showdown. But instead we had Yamato and the entire battleline pretty much sent packing by half a dozen tin cans & a handful of planes in a show of bravery that doesn't get the recognition it deserves.
Can't help but believe that having Lee's battleships around wouldn't have made it much more enjoyable for the IJN ^^
Agreed. Few military subjects interest me more than Leyte, and I'm happy to have steered some discussion in this direction. You bring up an interesting point Admiral. Some argue that had the battle taken place with Lee that the Japanese would have made a better account of themselves since Kurita's general attack order in the battle with Taffy 3 was the root cause of their failure to inflict a more punishing blow. They argue that a meeting of the battle lines would have seen more order and effectiveness from the Japanese fleet.
Without getting in to my analysis of the missed clash, I find it doubtful, but not without some merit. At the very least I think if Lee and Kurita had indeed met at the strait that the Japanese would have deployed their destroyers more effectively than they did in the battle with Sprague, and that would have made an impression.
I recently read that the US sailors facing this seemingly formidable foe at Leyte were aghast at the poor gunnery rate of fire and accuracy of the IJN.
Well - the blunder did rob us of a battleship showdown. But instead we had Yamato and the entire battleline pretty much sent packing by half a dozen tin cans & a handful of planes in a show of bravery that doesn't get the recognition it deserves.
Can't help but believe that having Lee's battleships around wouldn't have made it much more enjoyable for the IJN ^^
Agreed. Few military subjects interest me more than Leyte, and I'm happy to have steered some discussion in this direction. You bring up an interesting point Admiral. Some argue that had the battle taken place with Lee that the Japanese would have made a better account of themselves since Kurita's general attack order in the battle with Taffy 3 was the root cause of their failure to inflict a more punishing blow. They argue that a meeting of the battle lines would have seen more order and effectiveness from the Japanese fleet.
Without getting in to my analysis of the missed clash, I find it doubtful, but not without some merit. At the very least I think if Lee and Kurita had indeed met at the strait that the Japanese would have deployed their destroyers more effectively than they did in the battle with Sprague, and that would have made an impression.
I recently read that the US sailors facing this seemingly formidable foe at Leyte were aghast at the poor gunnery rate of fire and accuracy of the IJN.
By1944 Japan had lost most of its well trained sailors and airmen and were never really replaced adequately. The Battle of the Philippine Sea was clearly indicative of that.
Well - the blunder did rob us of a battleship showdown. But instead we had Yamato and the entire battleline pretty much sent packing by half a dozen tin cans & a handful of planes in a show of bravery that doesn't get the recognition it deserves.
Can't help but believe that having Lee's battleships around wouldn't have made it much more enjoyable for the IJN ^^
Agreed. Few military subjects interest me more than Leyte, and I'm happy to have steered some discussion in this direction. You bring up an interesting point Admiral. Some argue that had the battle taken place with Lee that the Japanese would have made a better account of themselves since Kurita's general attack order in the battle with Taffy 3 was the root cause of their failure to inflict a more punishing blow. They argue that a meeting of the battle lines would have seen more order and effectiveness from the Japanese fleet.
Without getting in to my analysis of the missed clash, I find it doubtful, but not without some merit. At the very least I think if Lee and Kurita had indeed met at the strait that the Japanese would have deployed their destroyers more effectively than they did in the battle with Sprague, and that would have made an impression.
I recently read that the US sailors facing this seemingly formidable foe at Leyte were aghast at the poor gunnery rate of fire and accuracy of the IJN.
By1944 Japan had lost most of its well trained sailors and airmen and were never really replaced adequately. The Battle of the Philippine Sea was clearly indicative of that.
Eh, that excuse does not really hold water for Kurita's force. Most of those ships had taken few casualties to that point in the war, and the crews were largely intact.
Re: Interesting historical blunders - 10/26/2001:08 AM
Thank you PM,
No, not seen. Very interesting, from the days when “This is Your Life” could cover characters who were real characters. One must give Bader that!
BTW had the immense privilege of being introduced to AVM Johnson at a Battle of Britain cocktail party at RAF Sealand in the late 1980s (he had learned to fly there in 1940, and had retired locally after his Air Force career).
While we were of course all in awe of him, _he_ was paying deference to a Captain Thompson, a little old chap in a wheelchair with a photo album of him and his teenage friends on recce biplanes on the Western Front in 1917.
Every generation of the Service in the same room at the same time. Unforgettable.
Re: Interesting historical blunders - 10/26/2003:29 AM
No, they had nothing to do with one another. The Turkey Shoot took place when the U.S. was taking back the Marianas Islands. Saipan, Tinian and Guam. June of 1944. Leyte Gulf took place the following October after MacArthur landed in the Phillipines. And, I too, think that the Battle of Leyte Gulf, which is actually several battles, is one of the most fascinating fights of the Second World War.
Re: Interesting historical blunders - 10/26/2003:40 AM
"Eh, that excuse does not really hold water for Kurita's force. Most of those ships had taken few casualties to that point in the war, and the crews were largely intact."
Yes, his blunder is certainly as bad as Halsey's was. He had the battle won, really, but did not know it. The bravery of Taffey Three's Destroyers, CVE's and those Wildcat and Avenger pilots should get as much noteriety as the men who stormed Normandy Beach.
And, I too, think that the Battle of Leyte Gulf, which is actually several battles, is one of the most fascinating fights of the Second World War.
Yes indeed Pooch. There is so much to it, not only what did happen, but speculation of alternatives. Over on the Battlefront forum (Combat Mission game) there was a thread recently about films we'd like to see and I said without a doubt it's Leyte. The first Kamikazes, the action in the Sibuyan and fishing the Japanese commander from the brine, and Surigao, the death of Musashi. Halsey's actions and decisions, and the resulting battle off Samar with the charging Japanese fleet and the heroism of the Taffy escort, just to name a few. It has all the makings of an epic film.
It's a infinitely interesting and intriguing battle. For years now I have thought of starting a series of threads here at SimHQ called What If:, where we discuss alternative histories based on the assumption that major military events took a different path based on a different strategic or operational decision. You know, what if the Germans had gone full out for Moscow, or what if they hadn't attacked the Soviet Union in 1941. What if the allies had made the cross channel invasion in 1943 as the Americans wanted. But the lead was to be What If: Bull Hadn't Run?
The speculative analysis of what would have occurred had Lee and Kurita met at the headwaters of the strait is fascinating to me and the sort of thing I love to discuss and the sort of thing I wish still was the focus of discussions at this site.
or what if they hadn't attacked the Soviet Union in 1941.
Here's an even more interesting alternate history question in my opinion: What if Hitler had never invaded Poland? Would Germany have remained a fascist country for several decades like what was the case with Spain or would the Third Reich regime have not been able to survive after the eventual death of Hitler? Would there have been a major power struggle like what we saw in the USSR after Stalin died?
France wins the French & Indian War instead of Britain.
1. Would the American Colonies have been handed over the France as part of the peace deal? 2. Would the American Colonies have eventually rebelled against French rule just like they did against British rule? 3. Would I be speaking French today instead of English?
or what if they hadn't attacked the Soviet Union in 1941.
Here's an even more interesting alternate history question in my opinion: What if Hitler had never invaded Poland? Would Germany have remained a fascist country for several decades like what was the case with Spain or would the Third Reich regime have not been able to survive after the eventual death of Hitler? Would there have been a major power struggle like what we saw in the USSR after Stalin died?
It seems unlikely the Third Reich would have continued indefinitely without a major war. On the of the major theses of Mein Kampf (and really, the title sort of gives it away) was that constant low-level conflict and territorial expansion were necessary to the national life of a "virile" people. Hitler anticipated a series of limited wars, picking apart the old western European empires and the new eastern European states at will. If it had not been Poland, Hitler would have gambled badly on some other venture.
Moreover, there is decent evidence the Hitlerian economic recovery was based on a proto-"plunder" economy; in other words, the Germans were borrowing against the future chance of absorbing their neighbor's GDP to finance their near term prosperity (and military buildup).
Re: Interesting historical blunders - 10/27/2012:16 AM
See, now that is a "what if" scenario that I can't see happening because with Adolph Hitler at the helm, there is no way there was not going to be a WW2. But to me, the most fascinating "what if," as far as WW2 is concerned, is what if England had lost the Battle of Britain. It was a close thing, and certainly could have happened. The world we know, today, would have been completely different. The war in the West would have been over. There is no way it could have gone on without Great Britain. Hitler could have thrown the entire might of The Third Reich at the Soviets. Europe and the Middle East would have been his. All of the natural resources and all of the oil he needed. I have no doubt in my mind the USSR would have been defeated. Winter or no Winter. Von Paulus would not have had Hungarian and Romanian units protecting his flanks. He would have had German divisions there and they would not have crumbled. The 6th Army would not have been surrounded. Stalingrad would have fallen to the Nazis. Canada would have been at war with Germany, but now, cut off from Europe, she would have been alone, hoping that the United States would join her. The U.S. would certainly have goten into it, eventually. Japan, seeing Germany's victory, would undoubtedly have attacked the U.S. in the Pacific. With things going well in Russia, Germany would have declared war on the United States and U-Boats would have joind the Japanese in making the seas around the North and South American continents a shipping graveyard. Things would only get worse from there. I really think the Battle of Britain was THAT important.
Re: Interesting historical blunders - 10/27/2003:18 AM
Originally Posted by Pooch
No, they had nothing to do with one another. The Turkey Shoot took place when the U.S. was taking back the Marianas Islands. Saipan, Tinian and Guam. June of 1944. Leyte Gulf took place the following October after MacArthur landed in the Phillipines. And, I too, think that the Battle of Leyte Gulf, which is actually several battles, is one of the most fascinating fights of the Second World War.
Thank you for clarity.
Both were big turning battles in favor of the USA.
Now what if Ho Chi Minh letter to Secretary of State Robert Lansing at the 1920 Versailles Peace Conference was not ignored by Lansing and the USA? Will the Vietnam War exist 35 years later? Woodrow Wilson's 14 points of light was only for the countries the USA like and not for everyone like he said.
Quote
To his Excellency, the Secretary of State of the Republic of the United States, Delegate to the Peace Conference. Excellency, We take the liberty of submitting to you the accompanying memorandum setting forth the claims of the Vietnamese people on the occasion of the Allied victory. We count on your great kindness to honor our appeal by your support whenever the opportunity arises. We beg your Excellency graciously to accept the expression of our profound respect. For the group of Vietnamese Patriots [signed] Nguyen Ai Quoc (Nguyen the Patriot) 56, Rue Monsieur le Prince, 56 -ParisDemands of the Annamese People Since the victory of the Allies, all subject peoples are filled with hope at the prospect that an era of right and justice is opening to them by virtue of the formal and solemn engagements, made before the whole world by the various powers of the agreement in the struggle of civilization against barbarism. While waiting for the principle of national self-determination to pass from ideal to reality through the effective recognition of the sacred right of all peoples to decide their own destiny, the inhabitants of the ancient Empire of Annam, at the present time French Indochina, present to the noble Governments of the entente in general and in particular to the honorable French Government the following humble claims: (1) General amnesty for all the native people who have been condemned for political activity; (2) Reform of Indochinese justice by granting to the native population the same judicial guarantees as the Europeans have, and the total suppression of the special courts which are the instruments of terrorization and oppression against the most responsible elements of the Vietnamese people; (3) Freedom of press and speech; (4) Freedom of association and assembly; (5) Freedom to emigrate and to travel abroad; (6) Freedom of education, and creation in every province of technical and professional schools for the native population; (7) Replacement of the regime of arbitrary decrees by a regime of law; (8) A permanent delegation of native people elected to attend the French parliament in order to keep the latter informed of their needs; The Vietnamese people, in presenting these claims, count on the worldwide justice of all the Powers, and rely in particular on the goodwill of the noble French people who hold our destiny in their hands and who, as France is a republic, have taken us under their protection. In requesting the protection of the French people, the people of Annam, far from feeling humiliated, on the contrary consider themselves honored, because they know that the French people stand for liberty and justice and will never renounce their sublime ideal of universal brotherhood. Consequently, in giving heed to the voice of the oppressed, the French people will be doing their duty to France and to humanity. For the group of Vietnamese Patriots Nguyen Ai Quac (Ho Chi Minh)
What if 2 countries who supported the USA, France and England after WW1 were not ignored at the Versailles Peace Conference and left without any gain: Japan and Italy.
Re: Interesting historical blunders - 10/27/2004:33 AM
My Uncle Melvin on my Dad`s side oldest brother was taken out of the war being a second wave ground assault coming after the first. Japs had figured out there Mortar assault correction just in time to hit the man next him seriously wounding my Uncle only the guy who was next him with part of a leg in a boot, he was erased. My uncle had serious injuries from his demise. Bone fragments from him left him unable to walk the rest of his life without leg braces and canes.
Re: Interesting historical blunders - 10/27/2007:17 AM
Originally Posted by NoFlyBoy
What if 2 countries who supported the USA, France and England after WW1 were not ignored at the Versailles Peace Conference and left without any gain: Japan and Italy.
You should take a look at the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye for Italy. Maybe you could understand why some italian ski athletes have germanic last names.
Re: Interesting historical blunders - 10/27/2011:00 AM
Originally Posted by PanzerMeyer
Originally Posted by Pooch
or what if they hadn't attacked the Soviet Union in 1941.
Here's an even more interesting alternate history question in my opinion: What if Hitler had never invaded Poland? Would Germany have remained a fascist country for several decades like what was the case with Spain or would the Third Reich regime have not been able to survive after the eventual death of Hitler? Would there have been a major power struggle like what we saw in the USSR after Stalin died?
The third Reich economy with it's sudden recovery from previous collapse was unsustainable without invading and plundering the resources of other European nations.
So many 'what if's?' What if the RAF had succumbed and Germany was foolish enough to invade these shores? It would of been an unmitigated disaster. Mayhap even shortening the conflict against the Nazi regime.
What if the US policy had been 'Japan First'? Without your massive industrial surge and supplies across the Atlantic, even before 7/12/4, 1I've no doubt Britain would have succumbed over time and request terms favourable to Hitler.
What if Germany had not shored up Italian forces, who 'snatched defeat from the jaws of victory' in North Africa and Greece? Britain would not have felt compelled to divide her forces to aid Greece and Italy would have been defeated giving UK complete control of the Mediterranean theatre.
The only certainty 'what if' to my mind is that if the Atom Bombs were not deployed , many more thousands of lives on both sides would have been lost or destroyed.
Re: Interesting historical blunders - 10/27/2011:20 AM
Originally Posted by Roudou
Originally Posted by NoFlyBoy
What if 2 countries who supported the USA, France and England after WW1 were not ignored at the Versailles Peace Conference and left without any gain: Japan and Italy.
You should take a look at the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye for Italy. Maybe you could understand why some italian ski athletes have germanic last names.
Yup! It's called the Tyrol region and a significant part of it lies in Italy.
See, now that is a "what if" scenario that I can't see happening because with Adolph Hitler at the helm, there is no way there was not going to be a WW2. But to me, the most fascinating "what if," as far as WW2 is concerned, is what if England had lost the Battle of Britain. It was a close thing, and certainly could have happened. The world we know, today, would have been completely different. The war in the West would have been over. There is no way it could have gone on without Great Britain. Hitler could have thrown the entire might of The Third Reich at the Soviets. Europe and the Middle East would have been his. All of the natural resources and all of the oil he needed. I have no doubt in my mind the USSR would have been defeated. Winter or no Winter. Von Paulus would not have had Hungarian and Romanian units protecting his flanks. He would have had German divisions there and they would not have crumbled. The 6th Army would not have been surrounded. Stalingrad would have fallen to the Nazis. Canada would have been at war with Germany, but now, cut off from Europe, she would have been alone, hoping that the United States would join her. The U.S. would certainly have goten into it, eventually. Japan, seeing Germany's victory, would undoubtedly have attacked the U.S. in the Pacific. With things going well in Russia, Germany would have declared war on the United States and U-Boats would have joind the Japanese in making the seas around the North and South American continents a shipping graveyard. Things would only get worse from there. I really think the Battle of Britain was THAT important.
I've not sure if the 3rd Reich could have sustained a much larger force within Russia given their logistics limitations, especially if they managed to push beyond Moscow, also I think they would have had a hell of a time with partisan activity and would have never been able to knock the Soviet Union completely out of the war.
It's 700+ miles from Moscow to the Urals, where the Soviets had moved much of their industry and would have regrouped their remaining armies if Moscow had fallen.
That's roughly the distance from the Axis' start line at the beginning of Barbarossa to Moscow, I think even the Western Allies would have been badly overtaxed if it came to projecting force at such distances in hostile territory.
Yeah, good points, especially given the stupid Nazi treatment of peasant russians,
This. At the very start many of those Russian peasants started out happy to be "liberated" from those monsters in Moscow, only to soon discover the other monsters in Berlin are fighting to prove that they're better at mistreating Russian peasants.
Agreed and this shouldn't be underestimated, but often is overlooked when discussing the war on the east front. I would say it was a gross miscalculation on the part of the Germans, but that isn't accurate I don't think as the notion of untermensch suggests this treatment was ideological and not borne of calculus. That is to say that it was inevitable in a sense, and not a decision drawn after considering if it was advantageous.
I think partisan activity was always going to be a factor, especially as so many bypassed enemy melted away in to the countryside, but had the Germans indeed acted as liberators and not oppressors, I think it's fair to say the degree to which they suffered from partisan activity would have been magnitudes lower. Partisans find it infinitely easier to operate where they have the support of the populace of course and it's interesting to consider how things might have changed had the Germans taken a different approach. A microcosm can be seen in the Crimea, where many of the locals still recalled the German occupation from the last war and viewed the German army favorably and offered shelter and comfort. A good account of this can be seen in Gottlob Bidermann's In Deadly Combat. He was assigned to the 132nd Infanterie Division which eventually fought for Sevastopol and he details how the locals received them.
As an aside, that is a fantastic book. Bidermann began the war as leader of a 37mm doorknocker AT gun crew as the 132nd followed in the wake of the leading elements of Barbarossa and eventually rose to company commander during the retreats, ending up in Courland. It's a first-rate memoir and I recommend it to anyone interested in this level of the war in the east.
And of course many of those peasants and other Russians who were welcoming of the Germans during Barbarossa felt the full wrath and fury of the NKVD as the Soviets turned the tide and started taking back lost territory from the Germans.
As much as 10% of Axis manpower on the Eastern Front was tied down in anti partisan operations, which would have been equivalent to a sizeable fraction of the total number of troops that the Western Aliies faced in our timeline!
If the Axis had managed to push deeper into the Soviet Union, and if Soviet high command had committed more resources towards helping them early, instead of treating them more as as an afterthought until the point when the Red Army had largely turned the tide anyway, I believe they could have easily doubled that figure.
It's not easy to eradicate partisans in the vast Soviet interior, especially in the mountains and deep forests, I believe the Soviets themselves didn't manage to wipe out the last civil war era anti Communist partisan groups until the 1950s.
And of course many of those peasants and other Russians who were welcoming of the Germans during Barbarossa felt the full wrath and fury of the NKVD as the Soviets turned the tide and started taking back lost territory from the Germans.
Being stuck between the NKVD and Germans is not a position I would envy. I think some of the partisans that resisted the Germans also felt the wrath of the NKVD, can't have a bunch of independent minded rebels who got used to resisting the local authority running around.
Originally Posted by Crane Hunter
It's not easy to eradicate partisans in the vast Soviet interior, especially in the mountains and deep forests, I believe the Soviets themselves didn't manage to wipe out the last civil war era anti Communist partisan groups until the 1950s.
If I remember right, in Hans Von Luck's book he was in a prison camp in Georgia after the war and the locals there didn't even know the first war had ended, much less that a second one had started and ended. He also wrote of other peasants in the woods west of Moscow who didn't even know Germany was at war with Russia and that the "Czar must be mad"
![[Linked Image]](http://content.pixxy.pl/items/A/v/AvPByPbGPN/obrazek.jpg)
