The Great Patriotic War

[Dr. Brian]

Originally posted by Skipper:

Same style extermination program as in Belorussia, Poland, Russia and Ukraine. Incidentally, all these were the places where there was a real large scale partisan movement. I don't think arguing who among these suffered more makes any sense.

Then you can't make statements about who suffered most. That's asking for debate and you're trying to hedge or quantify sensless acts. Just a different perspective.

------------------

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Panzer Leader]

I think the case for "White Russians" is pretty strong. At least, I know there were many thousands of Soviets who turned against the USSR and sided with Germany, however I don't know how many of them were "White" or pro-royalty, and how many were just dissatisfied with their communist leadership. I'm not sure a distinction would even need to be made.

What's the story on the French. I know French soldiers fought with the Germans in Africa (the French Foriegn Legion) but were there french in Russia?

Could I also add here that MANY people suffered during WW2, some more some less, and this discussion is not the place. It would be difficult that any single people suffered more than the Jews, who faced the prospect of total annihilation, but they are only one group of many who suffered. Let's keep this on topic.

Also, I have always heard and said The Ukraine, as it is more common, at least in English, but I have no idea what the official way to say it is.

[This message has been edited by Panzer Leader (edited 03-29-2001).]

[Grisha]

The French and Czechoslovaks each both had a fighter air regiment. Not sure what sort of Soviet-equipped ground army the Czechoslovaks though.

From a purely military history point of view, I'd say that the nations which should be covered(besides Germany & the Soviet Union) are:<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI> Romania<LI> Hungary<LI> Italy<LI> Finland

And it would be in that order of importance too.

------------------

Best regards,

Greg Leon Guerrero

[Skipper]

> That's asking for debate and you're trying

> to hedge or quantify sensless acts.

Didn't mean to porovoke anyone, just noted that Yugoslavian partisans played a significant part in liberation of their country by the Red Army.

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by c3k:

I'd have to check to see if Bulgaria did anything beyond their borders.

Bulgaria never went to war against the USSR but oddly enough they did surrender to them...as soon as the Soviet armies crossed their borders.

Michael

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

The SS divisions, were, for the most part, equipped like a normal SS division.

Not quite so, I think. They were largely equipped with captured arms of various types and nationalities. Not sure how much difference it would make in CM terms though.

Michael

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

I think Grisha's list is basically right. Yes, there were other formations, but not significant ones in combat.

For example, the Slovaks did provide 2 divisions. But they fell behind the march in 1941 for lack of adequate transport, without seeing any serious action. A single brigade was motorized to keep up with the rest of the German forces, later increased to a single division. It was in like 2 battles and did quite badly. The less mobile forces were used as rear area security troops. What was left of the mobile force was pulled out of the line, supposedly to refit but it never really did. They tried to use them as a regiment or battalion alongside German units, but morale was abysmal by then, and in the end they just formed a contruction battalion out of the leftovers.

Incidentally, Italy had by far the biggest army of any of the other powers mentioned, but few Italian units served in Russia, and did less. The Hungarians had enough Czech-built armor to equip one panzer division, and to replace its tanks once over the course of the war. The Finns fought well of course.

Other than those cases, the Axis minor allies were added leg infantry with poor weapons, officers, and morale. They should be in the game because beating on them, wherever part of the line was assigned to them that is, was a useful Russian strategy.

[Guest Rommel22]

Jason,

Not so, the Axis allied countries fought at times Bravely and with fanatical risistence. This is even said by a Russian tanker fighting around stalingrad.

It may seem they never did, and that they ran at the site of the enemy, aint so!

Read Stalingrad, Inferanal Coualdron.

Anyway, here is another good eaxample from the book above:

Army group A in the Cacasus was slowing down after a few weeks of continues fighting the offensive halted. So for one more try the Romanian army staioned right beside Amry group A, fired of a new offensive. They made good progress, the Germans were greatly emabarresed by this. The romanian offensive made great head-way, they captured several key cities and ports. After that, the Germans followed through and the offensive got rollin' again. But few months later it died out again, and that was it.

Even Manstein prasied the Romanian armies at the Crimea, sometimes they got through were the Germans didn't. Read Lost Victories my Mastein. He praises the Romaians several times for their accomplishments.

Marshal Antonescu and Dometriscu (probaly not spelled right) the two Generals of the two Rominian armies in southern Russia. They wanted to hand over complete control of their armies to the germans, would of made C&C munch better and much simpler. That would mean better combat performance. The Germans never followed through with this, even with Mansteins direct proposals of this to Hilter. The OKW simply said we will look into this, and nothing was done.

The Romians had the most troops out of all the Axis allies in the eastern front, they also suffered the most casualties of the all the axis allied countries.

Manstein says the same thing about the Italian 8th army. "Sometimes they fight fanaticly other times, they run"

So the axis allies did fight with bravery and fanaticly. And yes the Germans did put the Axis allies (was was left of them afte 42) as rear guards for the retreating armies!

------------------

Rommel22s Kampfgruppe site:

http://rommel22diarys.homestead.com/MyPage1.html

"I saw 5 Germans walking down the side of the road, so I followed them for a few yard to get closer. Then I shot them! Later that day I found out the war has been over for a few weeks." - someone

[Guest Rommel22]

bump

[Forever Babra]

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

I know French soldiers fought with the Germans in Africa (the French Foriegn Legion) but were there french in Russia?

I don't think that's quite accurate. There were Vichy French forces in Africa, yes, some of which did at least token defensive fighting, but I'm not aware of any Legionaire units fighting for the Axis. If you know of any, I'd be happy if you'd point me to it.

[Guest Rommel22]

bump

[gunnergoz]

Originally posted by Dr. Brian:

It is not called "the Ukraine." It is called Ukraine. We don't say "the Germany," "the Italy," or "the Holland." I'll gladly post a small article on the incorrect development and usage of "the Ukraine" if there is interest.

Doc, do you think that the literal translation of Ukraine as "borderland" might have led to others referring to it as "the borderland?" Sort of makes sense to me. BTW my wife is Ukrainian and never refers to her homeland as anything but Ukraine, that is without the "the."

[Skipper]

> some of which did at least token defensive fighting

iirc, these french troops lost something like 10,000 people KIA before surrendering (and inflicted comparable losses on US troops). I wouldn't call it "token".

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

The Romanians did indeed provide the largest force - of leg infantry, with poor weapons, officers and morale.

They had 37mm and 47mm AT guns that could not hole anything above a light tank. They started the war with about 100 toy tanks with MG main armament. The Germans supplied then a number of 37mm gun Czech tanks - into 1943. They finally got some real tanks for their lone armor division, about 200 Pz IVs and StuGs, in 1944 - then switched sides in August of that year.

As leg infantry, they were used in the attacks on Odessa and Sevastapol. In the case of the former, the attack was their own show, and it was not exactly a roaring success. They lost 90,000 men and most of the Russian garrison was successfully evacuated by sea.

In the case of the latter, they provided about 1/3rd of the force under Manstein's command, did not do anything spectacular, but performed well. It was their best combat performance of the war, and lasted a matter of days.

They were also foolishly assigned the flank positions for the Stalingrad campaign, a role for which they were extremely ill-suited. They lacked the heavy AT weapons, and the mobility (other than some horse cavalry of dubious combat value) to operate on the wide steppe. They had obsolete equipment, poor command, excessive frontages, little depth of reserves. And predictably, they fell apart in days when hit powerfully, taking catastrophic losses in the process.

At least one of their commanders had the good sense to go over the head of his commanders to his government, to ignore "hold at all cost" orders. About all you could say for them in that affair, is that they had a more rational head of state.

You can read more about the battles, from one of their countryman's perspective, here -

http://www.infonet.ro/personal/armata/battles/odessa.htm

http://www.infonet.ro/personal/armata/battles/sevastopol.htm

http://www.infonet.ro/personal/armata/battles/don.htm

http://www.infonet.ro/personal/armata/battles/kalmuk%20steppe.htm