There’s this view prevalent in the western public eye, that the German Army wasn’t
really beaten by the Red Army on the battlefield, at least not on the tactical or operational
level.
Another belief, relating to this point, is that the Germans were simply unable to recruit
enough soldiers or make enough equipment to maintain their army in the field.
In this view, German forces on the Eastern Front became weaker as the war went on, until
eventually there was nothing left to stop the endless Red Army hordes overwhelming
the gallant German soldiers.
As one German officer explained, the German divisions were like rocks in the ocean, drowning
under endless waves of Soviet rifles and tanks.
The German Army is seen as technically superior, in both leadership and skill on the tactical
and operational level.
But is this view correct?
And where did this idea originally come from?
Let’s tell the story.
The early accounts of the Eastern Front, published in the late 1950s, establish the general beliefs
we have today.
These rely heavily on German officer accounts.
And, of course, German officers liked to point out how professional they were, and how professional
their armies were.
Yeah, these officers aren’t going to say how bad they were, or how bad the armies
they created were, because that’s not what people do.
Instead they found other excuses for their defeat.
In these accounts, Hitler’s incompetence and the Red Army’s sheer weight of numbers
- the only thing they actually had going for them - was what eventually lead to Germany’s
defeat.
These officers went out of their way to criticise Hitler’s leadership, and separate Wehrmacht
from state.
They said that the Wehrmacht and the Heer was not the same as the SS and the Nazi Party as a whole, and
Hitler - the madman - is the reason everything went wrong for Germany.
And with Hitler being dead, he couldn’t really argue against them.
German division and regimental histories were also common after the end of the war - try
to find any Soviet unit histories in English and, even now, you’ll struggle.
All this contributes to the German dominance in the historiography, and emphasized the
German defeat in terms of numerical weakness.
And German accounts were popular with Anglo-American audiences, for a few reasons.
First, because it was the prestigious German Officers who wrote them.
And, because the USA wanted to learn from German experiences fighting the Soviets, so
it would be in a better position to fight the Soviets should the Cold War turn hot.
Halder and other German officers gave their manuscripts in, where they remained firm in
their conviction that the Wehrmacht was great, and that the Red Army relied solely on numbers
alone.
The US Army is won over by the German view, so much so that the United States reward Halder
with the Meritorious Civilian Service Award in 1961.
So the United States, gave Halder - who didn’t oppose the Commissar Order and who arguably
knew about the fate of the Jews and other war crimes - they gave him one of the highest
civilian awards the United States could offer.
And because the US Army thought the German view was right, the public assumed that the
German view must have been accurate and unbiased when the reports were published in the 1960s.
Meanwhile, Soviet sources were simply not available during the Cold War, and those that
were sounded like propaganda pieces rather than sounding factually correct.
Or, in Zhukov’s case, it was that heavy it could only be delivered to your local bookstore
on the back of a KV-2 tank.
Soviet sources were also biased, focusing on the big Soviet victories like Moscow, Stalingrad,
Kursk, and Berlin.
In these accounts, Red Army defeats were scarcely mentioned, if at all.
Suspicions and distrust of Communists, especially during the Cold War, gave Western scholars,
and the public as a whole, the perception that the Soviet sources were dubious at best.
And they do sound like propaganda pieces.
Plus, why bother with the Soviet accounts, when there are plenty of German officers publishing
their own accounts, in a language not too dissimilar to your own?
However, starting during the Cold War, but especially so more recently, scholars have
questioned the German view of the war.
Think about it, if you were to write a biography for everyone to read
you’re not going to admit your own mistakes or your deepest darkest
secrets, and the German officers certainly didn’t admit theirs.
New German archival material has been found, in addition to Soviet sources, now more accessible
after the end of the Cold War.
And more detailed studies of the German side have brought into question the old memoirs of the
German officers, and challenged our perception of the Eastern Front.
It’s now clear that many of the claims and beliefs of the early German Officers are either
inaccurate or fabricated.
The German Army didn’t lose the war - the Red Army won it.
And that is the fundamental shift that needs to take place.
The Red Army beat the German Army operationally and tactically on the field of battle.
We constantly hear how great and efficient the German Wehrmacht was, and how they fought
against great odds.
But the people saying that were the German generals themselves, and of course they would
say that.
The reality was though, that the efficient German army, lost the war.
So, realistically, it couldn’t have been that good if it lost it.
The idea that the Germans weren’t able to field enough men or enough equipment has also
been exaggerated.
German divisions on the Eastern Front were actually stronger than the traditional argument
of the war would have you believe.
They’re not at full strength after Barbarossa, but neither are the Soviets.
And they’re able to reinforce their armies and keep them well equipped, right up until
Kursk
The reality was that the Germans weren’t vastly outnumbered until after Kursk.
At that point they'd already lost the war.
Instead, German intelligence was poor, and that meant that the Soviets could concentrate
several armies at certain points of the front.
So yes, the German divisions facing several Soviet armies were vastly outnumbered, but
that’s only because German intelligence had failed to spot the build up of Soviet
forces.
A good example of this is during Operation Uranus, where the Germans knew an offensive
was coming, but didn’t know exactly where it was coming or realise the scale of the
operation being mounted against them.
Again, the reality was that on a whole, the German army wasn’t vastly outnumbered, and
they weren’t so badly equipped.
Yet these are the given reasons as to why the Germans lost the war.
It’s now obvious that the answer lies elsewhere.
And that answer is - the Germans were beaten by the Soviets on the battlefield, through
tactical, operational, and strategic victories - with logistical issues being a factor in
that.
Yet the perception that the German Wehrmacht was so efficient, unbeatable, and yet under
strength, is be so ingrained in Western culture that any attempt at revision of this concept
is going to be difficult.
Despite less biased texts by authors like Werth, Erickson, Clark, Citino, and probably
the most prominent author, David Glantz, the myth of German Wehrmacht superiority remains
the same.
But why?
Put simply - old habits die hard, and the new view of the Eastern Front has not found
its place in western culture.
Popular histories continue to champion the German-centric view, because the Wehrmacht
remains popular with the public.
Publishers like profit, and so continue to feed you with sugar-coated hamburgers, rather
than give you something that’s a bit more balanced for you to eat.
Academic studies do not sell well, so chances are you haven’t even heard of Glantz or have any of his books
on your bookshelves.
Yet, the fact remains that the German-only-view is out of date, and the truth, while it is
out there, is not widely known.
And unfortunately, people don’t like change.
Changing one’s mindset requires a certain amount of effort.
It’s not natural to question something you believe in, especially if you’ve had those
beliefs for a very long time.
You may not have seen all the evidence, so how can you possibly believe this new evidence or this new viewpoint.
All the evidence you have seen points you in one direction, and now you’re being told
there’s new wonderful evidence - it's got to be wrong!
Right?
But, how can you be sure, that this evidence is wrong, if you haven't seen the evidence?
Let’s start in the right place. This book - Enduring the Whirlwind - is the main source
of information for this video.
In fact, I’ve just spelled out its introduction to you.
While I do highly recommend Glantz’s works, and many others, go and read them, this
book does a good job of dispelling the myths of the German Army during the Russo-German
war between 1941 and 1943.
Thank you to Jeff for recommending me this, and thank you to my Patreons, as you enabled
me to purchase this book.
It going to make a vital contribution to my Stalingrad documentary.
Now, David Glantz’s lecture on the myths and realities of the Eastern Front is fantastic
and I’m going to link it in the description below and on the screen.
I highly encourage you give it a watch. It just goes into a lot of detail. It's amazing.
I’m eager to hear your point of view on this issue.
In your opinion, is the general western viewpoint changing, or are we stuck in our old ways?
Do you dismiss the revisionist historians or histories as myth?
Or are you glad that the truth is finally being revealed?
Let me know in the comments below that will be fantastic. Let's get into a debate.
Thanks for watching guys, bye for now.