It's been 75 years so let's discuss Operation Barbarossa or Eastern Front on general. Like, why were the Germans so goddamn brutal?
>>1318724
>why were the Germans so goddamn brutal?
because they're Slavs, not people, not even worthy of being called salves, end of story.
>>1318724
>brutal
How were they more than appropriately brutal in barbarossa?
If Guderian would have had his way, the war would have been very different. Right from Barbarossa...he petitioned for an all out run for the capital with all the armor he could muster, supplied by airdrop and 1000 trucks following him with supplies of food fuel and ammunition...2 weeks was his time frame to get to Moscow and then take the capital. There were other varitions of his plan, but it was far to bold for Hitler and his generals to even consider.
As part of the plan, for the offensive, Guderian wanted every Panzer 4 and Panzer 3 he could lay his hands on, for an armored spearhead to lead the way!
Because the east (or Russia for that matter) was the main enemy and conquest target of Hitler's vision of Germany. The goal of all that brutality was to demoralize the enemy and ensure a quick victory.
The Red Army, despite being passed off as a bunch of animals in suits by the Nazis, outsmarted the Wehrmacht and in the end the Soviets got to revenge-invade Germany and turn the Third Reich into a red pulp.
>>1318724
The racist ideology of the nazis is why the German forces in eastern europe were more brutal then they were elsewhere.
>>1318781
It may even have succeeded, but it wouldnt have changed anything
>>1318809
And also why they lost. Imagine if they had portrayed themselves as liberators from Stalinism. Heck, that's what the Ukrainians, Cossacks, Caucasians, Balts, etc. thought they were at first. But as usual German autism fucks it up for everyone.
>Have a quarter million variants of every model of anything
>Horse-drawn equipment
>Shitty logistics incapable of getting anywhere because of a lack of trains and roads
>Over-engineered everything
>Industrial output incapable of replacing shit
They had to take out their frustration on something, I assume.
>>1318823
It is true that Germany was at war with all the major powers of the time and was not really capable of victory long-term, but that doesn't mean that things wouldn't have changed if they did significantly better in eastern europe. For one thing, the US and British commonwealth armies might be the ones who take Berlin at the war's end.
>>1318823
Hitler didnt understand wars beyond an infantrymans outlook, Guderian was Beethoven on tracks
>>1318829
No. Germany was going to lose regardless, they had declared war on the UK, USSR, and then the USA. The only thing being kinder in the east may grant them is more manpower to hold off the inevitable with.
>>1318845
True, but it doesnt really matter. Germany had precisely 0 chance of ever beating the soviet uniont
>>1318845
How did the Germans lose Kursk? I only know that it was the first battle in WWII where they couldn't break through enemy lines, but the German armor had a ridiculous k/d ratio
>>1318724
The Soviets didn't sign onto the Geneva convention, coupled with it being an ideological and a race war
What the fuck do you expect?
on another note, Jesus fuck was the first day brutal.
>>1318901
>How did the Germans lose Kursk?
Superior reconnaissance and maskirovka
>>1318901
Because tanks alone don't win battles.
>>1318829
Hitler was flooded with requests from his Generals about arming over a projected 2.5 million Ukrainians.
In response, Hitler sent a Reichkomissioner noted for his peculiarly rabid hatred of Slavs to govern over Ukraine.
Austrian Autism > German Autism
>>1318932
>Austrian Autism > German Autism
SHUT IT DOWN
>>1318901
Wall of steel and trenches.
Manstein wanted to lure the Soviets into a running battle of deceptions to lure out, encircle and smash the Soviet offensives and give time to organize a proper summer offensive in 1944.
Hitler thought it wasn't proper, vetoed it, and that's why Kursk happened.
>>1318943
yfw I was the one who re-titled this as "Never Trust Austrian"
>>1318943
The German is a simple people who love to work and play follow the leader naively.
The Austrian suffers from an inferiority complex and an unusually devious mind meant to lure simple Germany to do its bidding.
Truly the Austrian should be relabelled as 'The Eternal Austrian'
>>1318829
They did portray themselves that way and they managed to get a large number of collaborators (soldiers and other auxiliaries). What Germany needed more than additional soldiers though were workers which is why more people were forced to become laborers in Germany instead of recruiting them for the war.
>>1318944
Manstein (and other generals) were also in favor of Kursk. He proposed another "backhand blow" as an alternative but saw that this plan had weaknesses just like Operation Citadelle, notably that it was unlikely that the Soviets would fall for the same trap again.
>>1318724
fun fact: There were about as many soviet divisions on or within striking distance of the border than the amount of divisions that Germany invaded with, the attack on Moscow was even postponed to surround and destroy one of these large pockets of divisions left over from the initial attack. There were just so fucking many Russians.
just like Japan's planned attack and seizure of U.S. assets the army was not prepared for the amount of stuff and production the Soviets had and the Germans were quickly bogged down and then overwhelmed by peasants armed with tanks and machine guns that were endlessly being made and sent through various corridors by the U.S. There was a similar stalemate as was in WWI for a short period while Germany could still match Russia's production stretching across the entire Eastern front, but I estimate that allied bombing quickly degraded the ability for any of it to be able to hold.
It's still kind of hard to wrap the mind around all the shit that the Russians had because there are so few pictures of Russian assets due to the iron curtain and Communist doctrine. There aren't even any pictures of the largest tank battle in history, Kursk or several of the most massive infantry engagements ever. Usually when the media portrays Russia in the second world war it's a bunch of peasants with small arms, but the real thing was much scarier.
>>1318781
ever heard of flanks ?
implying the capture of moscow would matter you remember napoleon?
>>1319293
>ever heard of flanks ?
supplied by airdrop and 1000 trucks following him with supplies of food fuel and ammunition.
And the Russians wont have to worry about their flanks will they? they will be too busy chasing Guderian,because thats how armies work ;^)
>Why did the Germans lose at Kursk?
The Soviets were entrenched like an alabama tick. Mines, anti-tank gun emplacements, air support, trenches, artillery, outnumbered the Germans over 2:1, I have no idea how the Germans expected to win there.
>>1319471
>I have no idea how the Germans expected to win there.
they had no idea all of that shit was there until it hit them
>>1318724
>Operation Barbarossa
USSR BTFO
>Operation Case Blue
USSR BTFO
Why was the USSR so shit?
>It seemed as though the invading armies were immediately swallowed up by the vastness of the terrain. ‘I went strictly by compass,’ commented Kuhnert, ‘occasionally checking the divisional insignia on the vehicles going east.’(11) To place the scale of the expanding front in relative context, it could be assumed that a widely stretched division might defend a 10km frontage. The new front would therefore require 280 divisions; but only 139 were theoretically available. Geographical hindrances such as the Pripet Marshes and Carpathian Mountains would restrict manoeuvre space. In reality, combat probably only occurred physically over a 1,000km frontage, and then only haphazardly. German divisions moving forward over the difficult roads that formed a primitive network probably advanced sweeping an area about 3km wide. Most combat formations would elect to concentrate in depth, forcing routes on narrow fronts. German progress, in a sense, could be pictured as three arrow shots – the army groups – fired into an empty but expanding funnel. An advance into the depth of the Soviet Union meant also that divisions had to remain behind to guard vital communication and supply routes, and reduce isolated Russian pockets. As a consequence, forces in the advance were constantly diminishing while the land area to be conquered doubled in depth and tripled in width. At the 2,800km-wide point the front was 1,000km deep.
Pretty crazy stuff.
>>1318831
>>Have a quarter million variants of every model of anything
And what are you talking about exactly?
>>1319480
Of course they knew it. The Kursk salient was an obvious target and it was crystal clear for the Germans that the Soviets knew the plan and would prepare for it. (Also, air reconnaissance). Some historians argued that the Germans deliberately gave Soviet agents information about the scale of the coming attack so that the Soviets would gather more troops in the salient - since it was the goal to encircle as many enemies as possible.
>>1319657
Just look at the Messerschmidt Bf 109.It goes from the B-1 variant to the K-4 sure. However, it goes a bit deeper into the rabbit hole than that. They made so many weirdass subvariants of the variants that it was a logistical and maintenance nightmare. Like seriously, nine E variants or something existed. Same thing goes for most of their vehicles afaik, It seems like they just couldn't stop tinkering and improving very slightly constantly, which often necessitated retooling factories which was bad for production.
Why brutal? Mostly logistic.
Similar way why Nips were brutal in China.
Germans have shitty logisticand cant supply their troops.
Even better for big part of the war they were running civilian economy.
So where they get food or horses?
From locals.
But if you take food and horses and cattle locals will starve to death or resist.
Many did.
So you pacify them. If you leave them to starve they will cause trouble. So you eliminate them.
If you kill them then why no have some fun before that?
Germans could afford being disciplinied and civilized on West but not on East.
Not even mention all that drunken with power Party members, paramilitary formations or SS withtheir own command and supply chain ad you get total mess.
>>1319657
see this
https://youtu.be/N6xLMUifbxQ?t=41m22s
>>1319542
>Operation Uranus
NAZIS BTFO
why were Germans so shit at strategy?
>>1320137
I wouldn't get too high and mighty about one mistake, Ivan.
>>1320147
I don't believe you're in a position to argue Germany's strength over the Soviet Union, Bernard.
>>1320162
It took the world to break a young ideology.
All it took for the Soviet Union's collapse was an unfiltered look at the west.
>>1320217
I aim to please :3
>>1320137
>>1320147
The Russkie isn't wrong, though. Those battles are NOT indicative of regular German strategy, i.e. meet the enemy head-on but use clever tactics.
By and large, Soviet strategic and operational planning was superior to the Germans' and far more impressive considering their troops were barely trained compared to the Germans.
>>1320260
Regular German strategy resulted in more inflicted casualties against a larger force. How is that not superior?
>>1320293
>How is that not superior?
Because they lost the fucking war
>>1320299
>look at me I can't form an argument
>>1320293
>muh k/d
soviets played to their strenghts and won
>>1320293
You're talking about tactical superiority which was the case from 1941 - mid 1944. This is what armchair generals on the internet don't get, war isn't decided by groups of platoons outskilling each other like an online FPS match.
The Heer and Luftwaffe achieved impressive casualty ratios but were still in shambles by 1944. The reality is that if German strategy had matched German tactical prowess, the campaigns in the East would've been far more decisive. Likewise, if the Soviets had leaders who had been poor in terms of strategy, such as France or America, they could've lost the war quite easily. The Moscow counter-offensive and, more importantly, the Rzhev "meatgrinder" proved that throwing men at entrenched German troops was even more costly and worthless than it was in WWI.
>>1320312
No, that is all the argument you need. It doesn't matter how many people you kill if your strategy isn't good enough to win the war. Deep Battle was a good enough strategy to win the war, schwerpunkt was not. Either way, you're conflating tactics with war and the Germans weren't so great at that either because they didn't adapt them over time.
>>1318748
Actually, the Nazis wanted to enslave the Slavs they didn't murder
>>1318781
My grandfather was a German infantryman during Barbarossa.
I realize its purely anecdotal but he always said after a month of fighting through the USSR he was convinced it was simply too big to defeat. That even their officers were concerned that many times more Red Army formations than they had believed existed had shown up to fight.
>>1320293
Cept when you know, Russia annihilated army group north and center in under a year. Once Russia pulled their shit together and realized hitler was ordering his troops to fight till the end, they'd just by pasd strong points, trap them, blast them with artillery, and send in infantry to mop up.
>>1320314
>such as France or America
Is this bait or ignorance?
>>1320537
Not him, but the U.S. isn't known for strategic brilliance. Shock and Awe was literally just bomb everything until it stops moving, bomb it some more, then move in with ground troops. U.S. superior firepower doctrine has never really been that brilliant in terms of strategy.
>>1320537
I'm not talking about France or America today but the France and America of 1939 - 1945. By the standards of those times they were quite behind both Germany and the Soviet Union in terms of strategic outlook.
But this isn't denigrating America if that's what you're afraid of. America's strength lied in excellent use of combined arms and very simple strategies that got the job done. It's just that America's approach wouldn't have been as successful against the Wehrmacht at the height of its power in 1941.
>>1320599
>More accurately the Soviets had leaders with a poor connection with strategy who fell by the wayside. Your comment suggests otherwise.
Maybe it was luck that officers like Manstein or Zhukov got to the positions that they did. But it doesn't change the fact that thanks to those kinds of leaders, Germany and the USSR enjoyed a level of strategic brilliance that the other combatants in WWII simply couldn't hope to achieve.
After the spectacular successes of the German Army in France and the Lower Countries, all the other armies of the world should have been racing to adopt similar tactical and strategic doctrines. However, there was only one nation that took the "concept" of implemented mobile warfare and improved on it, and that nation was the USSR.
>>1320599
>Hot citations but anecdotes don't really count for anything
It's quite literally the main criticism of shock and awe and why we don't fucking use it anymore. It was a strategic fucking failure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Conflicting_post-war_assessments
AirLandBattle? Came about because fucking Active Defense was useless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirLand_Battle#FM_100-5
I don't care how you want to spin this, U.S. strategy has never been that apt but for superior firepower doctrine it doesn't really need to be.
>>1320623
winkel
Moscow was a mistake
>>1318901
They shouldn't have fought Kursk in the first place but the allied invasion of Italy prompted der Führer to move an entire division from Kursk back to Italy in the middle of the offensive. Full retard in other words.
>>1318923
>The Soviets didn't sign onto the Geneva convention
But German did.
It's disturbing how all the rape the Germans must have committed in the East rarely if ever gets brought up.
>>1318781
Did Germany have air superiority at all times to do that?
Also how the fuck are tanks going to be useful in a a huge city like Moscow?
Sounds stupid.
>all those young men who died in Soviet uniforms
The Eastern front was just brutal in general for pretty much everyone in general but the number of Russian casualties I always find so staggering, I wonder what an average rifleman must of thought knowing they probably might die
>>1318781
They would have been worse off had they followed this plan.
>>1318781
That plan is fucking autistic.
>>1318836
No... anon... he was implying that Germany, no matter which option they took, was going to lose against the USSR.
>>1322542
Not that this is much consolation, but don't forget, the Soviets took a bit over 1/3 of their losses in the first nine weeks of the war. Assuming you were a draftee brought up once that initial rush played out, your odds were considerably better than if you were someone in the pre-war army.
>>1322351
The Germans were not obliged to following the guidelines as the Soviets hadn't signed it. Good treatment was a luxury the Germans could barely afford with their western PoW's
>>1322542
After shit went down they stopped giving a fuck according to pic related. Lived in the moment and all that bullshit to be reductive about the book's thesis . They were more concerned about their fellow soldiers than themselves.
I don't know how much truck this book carries as it's the only psychological book about Stalingrad I've read.
>>1318781
>the war would have been very different.
The war would have been very different in that the Germans would have lost much faster as they lose their momentum toward Moscow and get outflanked by Soviets who would still have their Ukranian troops and industries.
>>1322583
That is apologetic bullshit to the nth degree. Germany signing it means they are obliged to follow it regardless of whether the Soviets signed or not.
>>1322598
And you are dangerously naive to think that it should be so simple.
What in the hell are you supposed to do with millions of prisoners who need to be fed when your own country is barely getting by itself. This may come as a shock, but the Germans really had no other choice but to mistreat them and let them die in mass. The moment the Germans crossed into the Russian frontier, they were walking into a clusterfuck of logistical problems, making what happen an inevitability even if they weren't fighting a war of annihilation.
>>1322598
Actually, you're not obliged to follow the Geneva conventions against non-signatories. There's even a specific clause stating that you don't have to. Same against non-uniformed combatants like modern camelfuckers.
>>1322638
Wrong.
>Art. 25. The provisions of the present Convention shall be respected by the High Contracting Parties in all circumstances.
If, in time of war, a belligerent is not a party to the Convention, its provisions shall, nevertheless, be binding as between all the belligerents who are parties thereto.
Germans had no ground to stand on.
>>1322621
>What in the hell are you supposed to do with millions of prisoners who need to be fed when your own country is barely getting by itself...Germans really had no other choice but to mistreat them and let them die in mass.
The Germans went out their way to mistreat and let them die in mass, even refusing aid from the Red Cross. This was not necessity, it was a racial and ideological choice made exactly because it was a "war of annihilation" started for that very purpose: annihilation.
>>1322654
Article 25 didn't come about until 1949... 4 years after the war had ended. The only person without ground to grandstand from is you.
>>1322621
may they shouldn't have invaded...
>>1322638
>Actually, you're not obliged to follow the Geneva conventions against non-signatories
no there isn't
>There's even a specific clause stating that you don't have to.
no there isn't
>Same against non-uniformed combatants like modern camelfuckers.
legal grey area. geneva convention also applies to non-military personell, but in different ways
>>1322669
>no there isn't
>>There's even a specific clause stating that you don't have to.
>no there isn't
Yes, there is. This was explicitly stated in the original articles and did not change until 1949.
>geneva convention also applies to non-military personell, but in different ways
Non-uniformed combatants are unlawful combatants, not non-military personnel.
>>1322664
It's Article 82 for the 1929 Convention.
>Art. 82. The provisions of the present Convention shall be respected by the High Contracting Parties in all circumstances. In time of war if one of the belligerents is not a party to the Convention, its provisions shall, nevertheless, remain binding as between the belligerents who are parties thereto.
Still no leg to stand on. What's your next trick, apologist?
>>1322654
>using the post-war conventions as ''''''proof'''''
HAHAHAHA
>>1322676
>Yes, there is. This was explicitly stated in the original articles and did not change until 1949.
oh okay.
>Non-uniformed combatants are unlawful combatants, not non-military personnel.
they are still afforded certain rights under Geneva
War brings out the worst in people.
See your enemy do something brutal, you avenge them by doing even something more brutal and so on.
It's easy to sit here and be all high and mighty on your tall as fuck horse, when you're in the field starving, with no sleep for four days, knowing that the enemy flayed your friends alive just yesterday (or whatever brutality you can think of), what would you do when you get your hands on said people?
>>1322686
>as between the belligerents who are parties thereto.
so it applied only between co-signing belligerents
>>1322700
and the germans started it so fuck 'em
>>1322707
Nice selective reading. Keep saving face, it can only get worse.
>Invade Russia
>Encounter more divisions than you thought the enemy even had
>Count twice as many tanks destroyed as you thought the enemy had
>Encounter tanks you never even heard of before even though they have been in mass production for over a year
Why did the Germans suck at intelligence?
>>1322712
[citation needed]
>>1322686
There was no article 82 for the 1929 convention. There were only 63 articles and that wasn't one of them. The application of the Geneva Convention to all combatants if there was a single signatory did not exist until 1949.
>>1322715
Didn't expect women to fight, saw the winter war and thought they easily could beat them given their poor performance in said conflict. Overestimated the german troops, however good they are one german soldier doesn't kill 100 russkis.
>>1322621
>What in the hell are you supposed to do with millions of prisoners who need to be fed when your own country is barely getting by itself.
Not invade Russia because it is a bad idea and Germany will literally get swallowed by the space and manpower potential? Mobilize Germany into a wartime footing years earlier and increase agricultural output? Tell the POWs that you are helping to liberate them from the tyranny of Stalin and pass out the nuggets of the 7.62 x 54R kind? Disarm them and send them home, and shoot anyone who continues to resist? Lots of possibilities other than straight up genocide.
Your apologetic argument regarding the abuse and mass killing of Soviet POWs is pretty much identical for the Tankie excuse for Holodomor - that it was unintentional, that it was necessary to starve Ukraine to save the USSR, that Ukraine was harboring nationalist sentiment and needed to be punished.
The Nazis indoctrinated their troops to disregard Slavs as humans and through Barbarossa, put themselves into a scenario where "Starve slavs because no food" and "Starve slavs because subhuman" were both valid answers. I'm sorry, no one is "forcing" you to commit genocide, Germans were ideologically driven and the circumstances were perfect for them to do so.
>>1322714
i'm not the original guy. regardless, the sentence states:
> In time of war if one of the belligerents is not a party to the Convention, its provisions shall, nevertheless, remain binding as between the belligerents who are parties thereto.
it does not say that it is binding between a signatory and a non-signatory.
no offense, but you have really, really bad reading comprehension skills.
>>1322721
operation barbarosa.
>>1322621
Funny then, how the Soviet PoWs died at almost 20 times the rate as American, British, and French PoWs.
>>1322714
he's right, you know.
>>1318852
This isn't Hearts of Iron nigger.
>>1322721
Mein Kamf
Weird how naziboos and holocaust deniers love this book but forget it is literally a manifesto bragging about the atrocities the Nazis would later commit after they came to power. You don't rail on and on about Jews and Slavs in a manifesto if you aren't really planning on doing something about it.
>>1322723
https://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/52d68d14de6160e0c12563da005fdb1b/eb1571b00daec90ec125641e00402aa6
Keep making a fool of yourself, please.
>>1322732
>it does not say that it is binding between a signatory and a non-signatory
Wrong. It's saying signatories are abide by the convention, regardless of whether one they are opposing in war is a fellow signatories. That's what "remain binding as between the belligerents who are parties thereto" means; "nevertheless" they are still bound to the rules. Otherwise the article is pointless as treating fellow signatories well is a given.
You're either ESL, desperate apologist or a shitposter. No other options.
>>1322700
there was an interview from veterans
and there was one i distinctly remembered
An old lady with chest sprinkled with war medals was asked if she had any mercy towards german troops when she was fighting:
> No, of course not.
> Have you seen that have they done at home? No, they were not human.
> No mercy
>>1318724
Operation Barbarossa happening on June 22nd was to coincide with the summer solstice. That's some strange, unstrategic, and /x/-tier shit.
>>1318724
Partisans were fucking shit up.
>>1322749
This. Soviet prisoners were 16 times more likely to die than British or American prisoners, who were captured at a time when the war was rapidly taking a turn for the worse for Germany and when they were extremely tight on supplies from all the bombing and such.
>>1318724
how where they SO goddamn brutal?
you mean more than the Russians or?
>>1322764
You're absolutely right, in that game it is perfectly possible to invade and conquer britain when playing as germany, something was not possible in the real world, fuck you can even invade the US if you're feeling really saucy.
>>1322569
That's wrong though, Germany could have won a war against the USSR alone.
>>1318724
Germans viewed Slavs as equals of the Jews and wanted them removed from the earth. They also hated Italians and Spaniards as they viewed them as lazy and weak. The only people Germans didn't completely hate were the Anglos, French, and Scandinavians because they were viewed as just less pure than Germans but more pure than everyone else.
>>1325395
Soviets were captured in the millions while there were only a couple of hundred thousand British/American POWs. Germany didn't sit on a huge pile of food that could've been given to the Soviet POWs without further decreasing rations of their own population and those of the occupied countries.
>>1318889
wrong. they lost in the east due to bad judgement from the fanatic on top. if he had given more authority to his generals, they could easily have beaten Russia.
read up, mate.
you forget that most of the reason that they lost was the stupid decision of the assault of Stalingrad and the pre Barbarossa preparations. Hitler refused to listen to his generals. and thats most of the reason the eastern campaign ended the way it did
>>1322522
because it wasn't all that much, if it were. surely we would have heard of it if the figures where high. what did occur was russian propaganda ment for russians that germans were doing this horrible things.
you probably believe the nazis where to blaim for the Leningrad deaths too
>>1325539
>I don't know what per capita means!
Also, there were over 2 million French internees in German prison camps, what with the surrender in 1940. They weren't dropping like flies.
>>1325545
>if he had given more authority to his generals, they could easily have beaten Russia.
According to the German generals themselves, who might not be the best sources on that.
>read up, mate.
I have. I'd really recommend some Glantz.
>you forget that most of the reason that they lost was the stupid decision of the assault of Stalingrad
What "stupid decision"? Do you mean dividing an Army Group into two Army Groups and then try to cover twice as much ground without more actual force? Or are you referring to the assault itself, which was necessary, what with the Germans not having the manpower to circumvellate the city?
> and the pre Barbarossa preparations.
And pray tell, what exactly could have been improved upon?
>and thats most of the reason the eastern campaign ended the way it did
No, the reason the Eastern Campaign ended the way it did was that it was based on the premise that the Soviets would crumple the way the Russians did in WW1. When they didn't, Germany didn't have the manpower or the logistical capability to push eastwards indefinitely.
>>1325545
Hitler on the one side vs "The generals" on the other is a meme that only half-educated retards keep repeating. It's been debunked countless times on here, just educate yourself.
>>1325570
>>I don't know what per capita means!
Explain.
>French POWs
There was enough food for them (that is still rather meager rations), this doesn't mean there was enough for millions of additional POWs. Sure, they could have given some food dedicated to French POWs to the Soviets. The only effect would be decreasing the casualty rate of Soviet captives while increasing that of the French. The result would be worse relations with Vichy which was not advisable.
>>1325617
> Explain.
Some 57% of Soviet PoWs held by Germans died. The rates for French, American, and British were way, way lower, often in the realm of 0-2%. The mere fact that there were more Soviet prisoners in an absolute sense wouldn't impact the percentages that died in internment.
>There was enough food for them (that is still rather meager rations), this doesn't mean there was enough for millions of additional POWs
When you consider that these were roughly 1/3 of all PoWs taken by Germany during the war, and the Soviet death rate is still a bit over to THIRTEEN TIMES the French death rate, forgive me if I find your argument utterly laughable.
Soviet PoWs died like flies because the Germans were killing them deliberately, or at best didn't care if they lived or died. It had nothing to do with stretching rations.
>>1323590
Nothing really strange about that though, that was when all the mud had dried up.
>>1318901
>but the German armor had a ridiculous k/d ratio
Mostly due to overreporting.
>>1325640
You seem to think that Germany had huge food reserves and only introduced rationing for shits and giggles. Even in Western Europe the rations were barely sufficient. Food was scarce and someone had to get the short end of the stick. They could have distributed food more evenly among the different POW nationalities, but it wouldn't have changed the number of total deaths and as explained it would have caused political repercussions with Vichy and the Western Allies.
>>1325709
No, I think that when the party platform is to conduct a war of replacement against given population segments, they'll not bat an eyelid when those population segments die off in droves. When you have people like Hans Frank talk about using starvation as a deliberate tool of demographic redrawing, it makes me think it wasn't "boo hoo there isn't enough food to go around" and more "This is an easy way to kill them off."
>>1325761
Apart from speculations, do you have any concrete proofs (orders etc) that the starvation of POWs was deliberately done as a measure of ethnic cleansing? Why weren't Polish POWs affected by it in the same manner whose land had a higher priority of Germanization? Anyway, even if there were no germanization plans, mass starvation would have happened in this war simply because food scarcity was the material reality (which you refuse to acknowledge for some reason). Got to go now, maybe I'll reply later
>>1325815
>Apart from speculations, do you have any concrete proofs (orders etc) that the starvation of POWs was deliberately done as a measure of ethnic cleansing?
It's hardly speculation when this is literally mentioned in things like Mein Kampf and Hans Frank's notes on how he ran occupied Poland.
>Why weren't Polish POWs affected by it in the same manner whose land had a higher priority of Germanization?
.... Are you retarded? They fucking were. Poland lost almost 1/5th of its entire population, and those PoWs died in droves.
> Anyway, even if there were no germanization plans, mass starvation would have happened in this war simply because food scarcity was the material reality (which you refuse to acknowledge for some reason)
The reason being, that even during the "Mass starvation" periods, the PoWs who weren't labeled Untermenschen didn't have mass die offs. You know, because the Germans found food for them.
You want to read up on the phenomenon? Start here.
http://wih.sagepub.com/content/11/2/148.abstract
German strategy and tactics were too big for their logistics.
>>1325845
>>1325845
Didn't know that Mein Kampf mentions how POWs should be treated. Hans Frank wasn't responsible for POWS either. Concrete proof would be administrative documents that specifically deal with the POW issue.
The death rate of Polish POWS wasn't nearly as high as the Soviet one, apparently about 10,000 died in total.
I already adressed the difference of casualty rates, it's not a proof that there was no food shortage.
>>1326127
>Didn't know that Mein Kampf mentions how POWs should be treated.
It addresses how the German people, in order to achieve full freedom to develop, need to expand into the central Asian plain, and remove the people already there. Hence, killing the undesirable Untermenschen.
>Hans Frank wasn't responsible for POWS either.
He was responsible for the internment camps in Poland itself.
>The death rate of Polish POWS wasn't nearly as high as the Soviet one, apparently about 10,000 died in total.
Oh, let's see a source?
>I already adressed the difference of casualty rates, it's not a proof that there was no food shortage.
You haven't even demonstrated that the death rates were due to food shortages at all. You just went ahead and assumed that they were, despite the fact that there really isn't any evidence whatsoever for it.
>>1326167
>It addresses how the German people, in order to achieve full freedom to develop, need to expand into the central Asian plain, and remove the people already there. Hence, killing the undesirable Untermenschen.
Mein Kampf talks about acquiring living space in the East, that's it. It doesn't mention killing the people there. (Btw, does he say Central Asia? Not sure about that). Again, Hitler does outline his living space ideology but this doesn't mean that this was the reason for the treatment of the POWs. You'd need more concrete proof for that claim.
>He was responsible for the internment camps in Poland itself.
For the POW camps? Those were generally administered by the OKW. Concentration camps by the SS.
>Oh, let's see a source?
Mentioned there:
>German Wartime Society 1939–1945: Exploitation, Interpretations, Exclusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_and_the_Second_World_War
>You haven't even demonstrated that the death rates were due to food shortages at all. You just went ahead and assumed that they were, despite the fact that there really isn't any evidence whatsoever for it.
Well, if there wasn't food scarcity the rations in Germany wouldn't have been decreased before Barbarossa. And even though the food situation in Germany was decent overall, the situation in the occupied Western area was worse, even in the Germanic countries whose approval was desired. Backe laments that due to the insufficent food supply for Western Europe the industrial production capacity there cannot be fully materialized. So overall the food situation was already strained and if you are in charge of feeding millions of additional people you have a problem.
>>1325644
If all those wehraboos and naziboos anons are worth damm, they should try to make this bingo into swastica shape.
>>1322724
Unfortunately for them Soviets also saw Winter War and decided to do something about that.
>>1326339
>Mein Kampf talks about acquiring living space in the East, that's it. It doesn't mention killing the people there.
Yeah, you're going to resettle millions of people over there without displacing the original population [/sarcasm]
>Again, Hitler does outline his living space ideology but this doesn't mean that this was the reason for the treatment of the POWs. You'd need more concrete proof for that claim.
I have the death tolls. I have how the death tolls divided very neatly across the lines that Hitler himself drew as untermenschen. That's enough that the ball is in your court to demonstrate how it was totally a happy accident the bulk of the dead coincided with the people that Hitler wanted gone.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_and_the_Second_World_War
Again, let's see a death rate among Polish PoWs.
>Well, if there wasn't food scarcity the rations in Germany wouldn't have been decreased before Barbarossa
There was also rationing in Britain. In fact, rationing in Britain didn't end until 2 years after the war. And yet there somehow wasn't mass starvation, even when they started taking lots of PoWs. There's a long distance between need to ration, and "millions of people are dying of hunger".
>And even though the food situation in Germany was decent overall, the situation in the occupied Western area was worse, even in the Germanic countries whose approval was desired.
And even in places that were worst hit, like the Netherlands during 44-45, you had death tolls in the low tens of thousands, not the millions. And this is in the close of the war, when things are as bad as they're going to get.
>/pol/fags would disregard actual quotes from Nazi leaders about how certain groups as "subhuman" and deny Nazis committed actual warcrimes
>then proceed to pick quotes from the Quran and remarks from random Jews 24/7 as evidence of how Jews and Muslims are a substantial threat and should be wiped out
>>1318781
That sounds like a pretty fucking stupid and g.o.a.t. invasion plan.
>>1318748
this is actually true
