What did the Nazis do for us?

[Thermodolia]

Considering that Panzers are shit tanks I doubt many commies are taking a crap at the sight of one.

Not really; the series as a whole was excellent and worked great. The later models certainly had reliability issues, but even into 1944 (Statistics don't exist for 1945 that I've seen) the Germans maintained a 3:1 loss ratio in their favor versus the Soviets. This was despite the Soviets introducing the T-34/85 for example.

The panzers had a shit load of mechanical issues. They where over engineered pieces of shit. The loss ratio doesn’t matter because for every single tank the Soviets lost they could produce 10 the Germans couldn’t do that. So they where utterly fucked

[Sefy the Great]

The EU isn't Nazi enough for Nazis to accept it as their Fourth Reich.

Ya but the idea of the Reich doesn’t originally have nazi connotations. The HRE was the first Reich, and the German Empire was the second Reich. Therefore the EU is the fourth Reich.

Reich literally just means Empire.
the HRE was an empire(?), so it thus can be classed as a Reich.
The German Empire is obviously an empire, thus it is a Reich.
The Third Reich is... *looks in dictionary for most neutral terms* open to interpretation.
the EU is kinda like the HRE - questionably not an empire, questionably does not hold all of Europe, etc, etc.

[Ifreann]

The EU isn't Nazi enough for Nazis to accept it as their Fourth Reich.

Ya but the idea of the Reich doesn’t originally have nazi connotations. The HRE was the first Reich, and the German Empire was the second Reich. Therefore the EU is the fourth Reich.

Poor Nazis. Their Fourth Reich isn't even German.

[Oil exporting People]

Not really; the series as a whole was excellent and worked great. The later models certainly had reliability issues, but even into 1944 (Statistics don't exist for 1945 that I've seen) the Germans maintained a 3:1 loss ratio in their favor versus the Soviets. This was despite the Soviets introducing the T-34/85 for example.

The panzers had a shit load of mechanical issues. They where over engineered pieces of shit. The loss ratio doesn’t matter because for every single tank the Soviets lost they could produce 10 the Germans couldn’t do that. So they where utterly fucked

The later models yes, not the earlier ones; the Panzer III and IV are widely accepted as some of the best weapons of the war. And the whole "10 to 1" thing is irrelevant because up until 1944 the Germans destroyed more tanks thank the Soviets produced; Lend Lease again saved their ass. It should also be noted the Soviets barely got by in 1944 by 75 tanks.

[Duvniask]

You have repeatedly been claiming the Soviets got their ass handed to them and that they were "incompetent". I explained to you that things are not so simple, and that you should take into account how casualties are actually registered, because many of the Soviet casualties are not even from combat, hence why it's disingenuous to claim Bagration was a display of Soviet incompetence.

That actually hammers home how incompetent they were in that they failed to achieve sufficient sanitation to prevent such casualties.

Again ignoring the point that these casualties are not counted for the German side, and is in no way indictive of the Germans "kicking their ass", since they were not responsible for such casualties.

Outside of few outliers, you generally didn't see other Armies suffer from this to the same degree.

This should tell any reasonable person that perhaps there's more to the issue than LOL SOVIETS BAD. Ask yourself, why do the Soviets have such a large ratio of wounded and sick to those killed, compared to, say, the Germans. This is another indicator that maybe, just maybe, these numbers are overinflated.

In reality it was a successful operation that destroyed Army Group Center and saw the Soviets liberate all of the Byelorussian SSR.

It was certainly strategically successful. It was also against a force they outnumbered somewhere around 3:1, had been stripped of all but 44 fighters to cover their entire front, had their Panzer divisions sent Westwards and were then denied the ability to do tactical withdraws.

I mean, you're almost making the case for me that the German command were incompetent, especially on the strategic level.

Despite this, they still managed to take twice the casualties of the Germans over the course of the operation.

We've already established that this was not because the Germans were such Übermensch as you are making them out to be, but rather a likely result of a difference in statistical categorization.

Calling it "excuses" is really perplexing to me as well, because obviously a wounded or sick soldier can live to fight another day whereas a dead or captured soldier cannot. All those losses for the Germans were more impactful, even if we look past the relative difference of size between the two sides. You are also ignoring that if we had to truly get an accurate figure of "total casualties", we would either have to include all German medical casualties (sick/diseased) or subtract the number of sick/diseased Soviet soldiers, because those aren't really combat casualties at all. The fact that the Soviets had fewer permanent losses absolutely challenges your false narrative. Ignoring this to make it seem like the Germans did better than they actually did is the real "excuse" here, buddy.

You start off talking about wounded and then switch to talking about sick because we both know it's bullshit not to call a wounded man a combat casualty and not count him in terms of statistics.

No, I'm saying in terms of total casualties near the end there, because I'm trying to argue on your terms. I'm saying that even if you want to count total casualties, you are not getting a fair comparison here, for reasons I have already established.

And aside from me arguing on your terms, I've literally just explained to you in that quote that there's a good case to be made that total casualties don't portray the most accurate picture of the operation.

The Jassy–Kishinev Offensive involved more than a million men on the Soviet side, and at least a million Romanians and Germans on the other side.
The Soviets lost 13,197 killed/missing and 53,933 wounded and sick for a total of 67,130. If you include the Romanians on the Soviet side, with 8,586 killed and wounded, this total increases to 75,716. The Germans on the other hand lost 150,000 killed, wounded or captured, while the Romanians on the German side had 8,305 killed, 24,989 wounded and 170,000 captured or missing. This adds up to a total 353,294.

Wikipedia estimates are on the lower end, with other scholars putting the Soviet losses closer to 80,000 for this specific operation; combat operations on the whole within Romania amounted to 220,000 from April to October when the last German units were expelled.

Which are still quite low. The Soviets managed to occupy almost all of Romania by the end of the operation.

I'm also confused at your 180 on the matter of wounded.

It is not a 180. I am arguing on your own terms to show that you are still wrong. That doesn't change my view, whatsoever.

With regards specifically to the Romanians:

For Romania, the change of front brought neither the end of the war, much less the liberation, but rather it was handed over to the Soviets. These did not rush to sign the ceasefire agreement after August 23. They did not treat the Rumanian military as allies in the first few days after the coup d'état, and by 31 August had made more than 120,000 prisoners of war after they had laid down their arms without resistance. These Romanian soldiers, imprisoned immediately after the so-called "liberation from the Hitlerite and Fascist yoke," were released from Soviet captivity only four to five years later.

It should be no surprise the Soviets would treat the Romanians this way, considering they were enemies days earlier. But, taking into account and subtracting 120,000 prisoners of war, which were captured without resistance, from the total casualty count and the bigger numbers for Soviet casualties, we're still left with 80,000 against 233,294. In other words, a ratio of 2.92 in favor of the Soviets.

In other words the total casualty ratio is 4.66 in favor of the Soviets. Not only that, but Romania and Bulgaria switched sides against Germany in the war's final months.

Which further underlines how incompetent the Soviets were, in that it took the defection of Romania and Bulgaria to open the Balkans up to them.

In case you hadn't noticed, the Soviets had already broken through the German-Romanian defenses on the first day and were well on the way to conquering the country by the time that they switched allegiance. Rather, it shows a considerable intimidation factor, if you ask me. Here's what your own source says on the matter:

"The Soviet offensive, known as Operation Jassy-Kishinev, began on August 20, 1944. Their first target was, as Frießner had anticipated, the encirclement of the Sixth German Army. It was enclosed after a Soviet pincer operation from the area northwest of Jassy and from the bridgehead southwest of Tiraspol in the area Kischinew. On the very first day the Soviet troops broke through the German-Romanian defense lines in several places. Since Hitler still refused a withdrawal of the front to a more favorable line, Frießner ordered it on August 21 on his own authority. However, the catastrophe could no longer be prevented."

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

Not a major operation, my ass.

In the historiography of the Eastern Front as a whole, it's not.

"Historians don't focus as much on it, therefore it's not a big operation where the Germans lost!". There are no excuses here. Hundreds of thousands of men were involved; it was a large, successful operation for the Soviets.

They managed to penetrate multiple lines of defense at certain points, yes, but they did not achieve their objective, which was for the forces of Army Group Center and Army Group South to take Kursk in a pincer movement. I'm not sure what "area" or "reinforcements" you are talking about that were "destroyed", since Ivan Konev's Steppe Front, which provided reinforcements to the Kursk salient was still up and running and took part in Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev regardless, along with the Voronezh Front itself, while in the North the Central Front undertook Operation Kutuzov. I might add the Germans, due to their poor intelligence gathering, had no knowledge of these counter-offensives, and again, they had vastly underestimated the size of the Soviet forces they were facing.

5th Guards Tank Army was effectively destroyed and Army Group South had eliminated Soviet reserves available in the bulge when Hitler ended the operation on July 16th. Manstein was still in a position to keep up the attack and was actually, given the destruction of Soviet armor, in a position to really continue putting the hurt on the Soviets:

The fighting, characterized by massive losses of Soviet armor, continued throughout July 12 without a decisive success by either side–contrary to the accounts given in many well-known studies of the Eastern Front, which state that the fighting ended on July 12 with a decisive German defeat. These authors describe the battlefield as littered with hundreds of destroyed German tanks and report that the Soviets overran the SS tank repair units. In fact, the fighting continued around Prochorovka for several more days. Das Reich continued to push slowly eastward in the area south of the town until July 16. That advance enabled the III Panzer Corps to link up with the SS division on July 14 and encircle several Soviet rifle divisions south of Prochorovka. Totenkopf eventually reached the Kartaschevka­Prochorovka road, and the division took several tactically important hills on the north edge of its perimeter as well. Those successes were not exploited, however, due to decisions made by Adolf Hitler.

After receiving the news of the Allied invasion of Sicily, as well as reports of impending Soviet attacks on the Mius River and at Izyum, Hitler decided to cancel Operation Citadel. Manstein argued that he should be allowed to finish off the two Soviet tank armies. He had unused reserves, consisting of three experienced panzer divisions of XXIV Panzer Corps, in position for quick commitment. That corps could have been used to attack the Fifth Guards Tank Army in its flank, to break out from the Psel bridgehead or to cross the Psel east of Prochorovka. All of the available Soviet armor in the south was committed and could not be withdrawn without causing a collapse of the Soviet defenses. Manstein correctly realized that he had the opportunity to destroy the Soviet operational and strategic armor in the Prochorovka area.

Hitler could not be persuaded to continue the attack, however. Instead, he dispersed the divisions of the II SS Panzer Corps to deal with the anticipated Soviet diversionary attacks south of the Belgorod­Kharkov sector. On the night of July 17-18, the corps withdrew from its positions around Prochorovka. Thus, the battle for Prochorovka ended, not because of German tank losses (Hausser had over 200 operational tanks on July 17) but because Hitler lacked the will to continue the offensive. The SS panzer divisions were still full of fight; in fact, two of them continued to fight effectively in southern Russia for the rest of the summer.

Your quote only really describes the area of the Voronezh Front, especially around Prochorovka, and can not be applied to the full battle. The Steppe Front, outside the bulge itself, supplied reinforcements to the battle and participated in the following counter-offensives. So too did the Voronezh Front. You're putting it like the Soviets had exhausted themselves, which is false. The fact that they began two counter-offensives both during and immediately after Zitadelle should tell you this very clearly. You're just perpetuating a myth, which comes from Manstein himself, that Kursk was somehow a "lost victory". The Soviet attacks were going to come, regardless of whether or not Zitadelle (then re-dubbed Roland for the Southern continuation) was called off.

The Kursk Operation Simulation and Validation Exercise Phase II (KOSAVEII), which is a report on the Southern part of the battle, also gives a different picture in chapter 4, section 3 (pdf page 41):

"The chart shows that almost all of the available German manpower was engaged after 4 July. On 5 July, 93 percent of onhand German manpower was engaged against only 38 percent of the Soviet troops, which contributed to the enormous Soviet casualty rates (for engaged forces) which are recorded in the KDB on that day. Over 5-18 July, an average of 92 percent of the German manpower was engaged, versus an average 67 percent for the Soviets. The Soviet engagement fraction peaked during 12-14 July at 81-84 percent and dropped to 72 percent by 18 July. From 5 through 18 July, German engagement fractions never dropped below 86 percent. Since rest and replenishment were minimal in such a heavily committed force, the effectiveness and efficiency of German combat elements probably deteriorated over time relative to the Soviet force."

As for Hitler, he famously said the thought of Zitadelle made "[his] stomach churn", so he was not enthusiastic about Kursk front the start.

And?

He knew the operation wasn't likely to succeed, and he made the right call when he pulled Manstein's forces out.

He also allowed Army Group South to continue its attack until 17th August, which didn't reach Kursk or get through all the defensive lines anyway

Which is false.

What part is false? Your linked article agrees he pulled them back on 17th August. They never manged to reach Kursk - and even if they did, what for? The Central Front managed to hold off Model's 9th Army, so there was not going to be any linking up with Army Group Center, and had the Germans pulled even more forces into the bulge, their flanks would be even more exposed to the coming Soviet attacks, which seems to be what Hitler had anticipated when he pulled them out.

[Caracasus]

Are folks still tugging it over an ideology that prioritized total war and militarization above almost everything and still managed to get utterly wiped out on that front?

I mean it seems like the biggest 'contribution' noted here is military stuff and by the end of the war, Germany wasn't even in charge of the most powerful army in Berlin. Seems like their military contributions were more in the 'don't do this' category.

[Thermodolia]

The panzers had a shit load of mechanical issues. They where over engineered pieces of shit. The loss ratio doesn’t matter because for every single tank the Soviets lost they could produce 10 the Germans couldn’t do that. So they where utterly fucked

The later models yes, not the earlier ones; the Panzer III and IV are widely accepted as some of the best weapons of the war. And the whole "10 to 1" thing is irrelevant because up until 1944 the Germans destroyed more tanks thank the Soviets produced; Lend Lease again saved their ass. It should also be noted the Soviets barely got by in 1944 by 75 tanks.

So? That doesn’t make the German panzers better. The Soviets for the vast majority of the war went with overwhelming manpower. The US on the other hand went with mass produced tanks. The M4 Sherman was the best tank of the war hands down.

[Xmara]

Are folks still tugging it over an ideology that prioritized total war and militarization above almost everything and still managed to get utterly wiped out on that front?

I mean it seems like the biggest 'contribution' noted here is military stuff and by the end of the war, Germany wasn't even in charge of the most powerful army in Berlin. Seems like their military contributions were more in the 'don't do this' category.

I hate to break it to you, but there's always gonna be racists and antisemites in this world. It sucks.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

The later models yes, not the earlier ones; the Panzer III and IV are widely accepted as some of the best weapons of the war. And the whole "10 to 1" thing is irrelevant because up until 1944 the Germans destroyed more tanks thank the Soviets produced; Lend Lease again saved their ass. It should also be noted the Soviets barely got by in 1944 by 75 tanks.

So? That doesn’t make the German panzers better.

Actually it does.

The Soviets for the vast majority of the war went with overwhelming manpower. The US on the other hand went with mass produced tanks.

Every power in Europe went with mass-produced tanks though.

The M4 Sherman was the best tank of the war hands down.

Undeniable.

[Thermodolia]

So? That doesn’t make the German panzers better.

Actually it does.

Not really.

The Soviets for the vast majority of the war went with overwhelming manpower. The US on the other hand went with mass produced tanks.

Every power in Europe went with mass-produced tanks though.

In the sense that the tank wasn’t focus in the red army like it was in the American and German ones. The Soviets still relied on throwing massive amounts of humans at things until it worked.

The M4 Sherman was the best tank of the war hands down.

Undeniable.

You bet your ass.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

If it has not already been said: Godwin's Law

[Ruskland-Preuben]

They gave us no-smoking laws, or something.

[NeoOasis]

If it has not already been said: Godwin's Law

Finally something concrete the Nazis gave us.

Also bad puns.

Y'all did nazi that one coming, did ya?

[Dogmeat]

Hellsing Ultimate, and the Hellsing Ultimate Abridged series wouldn't have been possible without them.

Speaking of which, Episode 9 is out.

[Autarkheia]

If it has not already been said: Godwin's Law

If there hadn't been the Nazis, I wonder what the default wild political comparison would be. Maybe the Soviets.

[Bombadil]

Natty HUGO BOSS suits of course..

[Duhon]

Hellsing Ultimate, and the Hellsing Ultimate Abridged series wouldn't have been possible without them.

Speaking of which, Episode 9 is out.

Is this tr--
*click*
--SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[The Huskar Social Union]

Actually it does.

Not really.

Every power in Europe went with mass-produced tanks though.

In the sense that the tank wasn’t focus in the red army like it was in the American and German ones. The Soviets still relied on throwing massive amounts of humans at things until it worked.

Undeniable.

You bet your ass.

Soviet tanks were actually important in aspects of soviet deep battle from what i remember (ive not looked at the theory in years), to be used in conjunction with artillery and infantry to form breakthroughs kind of similarly to blitzkrieg.

But they tossed that out the window when they decided to have a good ole purge with papa stalin. Though it came back into the war later on but they still had the general idea of "Fuck ton of tanks, fuck ton of infantry, fuck ton of artillery, blow the germans to fucking pieces and roll over them"

[Hammer Britannia]

They allowed Europe to get raped twice. (First by the Nazis, then by the Americans and Soviets. To be fair, at least the Americans had the Marshall Plan and tried to prevent further Soviet Expansion)
They killed millions of innocent civilians
They gave birth to Neo-Nazis
They gave supplies to Finland (who are scary as shit by themselves)
They made Mussolini think he isn't worthless
They bombed the crap out of Warsaw because a couple of peasants rebelled (/s)
They unintentionally bombed Hamburg
They made a joke out of the French

Um... Positives...

The extension of the Autobahn? A good way of strawmanning people on the internet? Fanta? Wehraboos (Which are funny to watch)? The invention of the Modern Assault Rifle?

Yeah, not much

[Andsed]

They allowed Europe to get raped twice. (First by the Nazis, then by the Americans and Soviets. To be fair, at least the Americans had the Marshall Plan and tried to prevent further Soviet Expansion)
They killed millions of innocent civilians
They gave birth to Neo-Nazis
They gave supplies to Finland (who are scary as shit by themselves)
They made Mussolini think he isn't worthless
They bombed the crap out of Warsaw because a couple of peasants rebelled (/s)
They unintentionally bombed Hamburg
They made a joke out of the French

Um... Positives...

The extension of the Autobahn? A good way of strawmanning people on the internet? Fanta? Wehraboos (Which are funny to watch)? The invention of the Modern Assault Rifle?

Yeah, not much

I mean they gave us Wolfenstein so that's nice.

[The Blaatschapen]

Ya but the idea of the Reich doesn’t originally have nazi connotations. The HRE was the first Reich, and the German Empire was the second Reich. Therefore the EU is the fourth Reich.

Poor Nazis. Their Fourth Reich isn't even German.

Their first wasn't either.

[Ifreann]

Poor Nazis. Their Fourth Reich isn't even German.

Their first wasn't either.

They just can't catch a break.

[The Blaatschapen]

Their first wasn't either.

They just can't catch a break.

It's easier to catch things if you hold your hand with the palm upwards.

[Novus America]

Poor Nazis. Their Fourth Reich isn't even German.

Their first wasn't either.

The first Reich mostly was, despite the odd name and some non German speaking territories.
It was officially the “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation” from the 1500s onwards as well.

[The Blaatschapen]

Their first wasn't either.

The first Reich mostly was, despite the odd name and some non German speaking territories.
It was officially the “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation” from the 1500s onwards as well.

' some non german territory ' does include roughly the modern day Czech Republic area.

Quite a bit, if you ask me.