Germany's European Allies

[ralphwiggum]

For years I have heard Criticism that Germany's Eastern Front allies had poor quality armies Were they really as bad as I've been told?

 

[tyrodtom]

Everybody needs allies to blame your failures on.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Let's see ... we're talking about Finland, Hungary, Romania, Italy, Spain ..... plus Waffen SS contingents from France, Estonia, Latvia, Belgium, Denmark, and Scandanavia in general.

Settling aside the Waffen SS contingents ... I very much doubt that these nations would feel they were weak allies ..... or that their armies were defective.

BUT ... the Soviets knew how to exploit weakness in the makeup of the front .... such as attacking where the Romanian line (or the Italian line) joined the German line .... as, for example at the commencement of the Stalingrad counter-offensive.

"Were they really as bad as I've been told? " careful who you listen to, Ralph

MM

 

[A4K]

It's crap.

The Hungarians (Germany's staunchest ally) fought extremely well, and were largely equipped with German equipment.
To this day they feel more affinity with the Germans than the Allies, war's end resulting in Russian occupation, with no assistance from the US or Britain when they tried to revolt.

 

[Shortround6]

I don't know for sure but many of the German Allies may have been under equipped. They were often a year or two behind in armor (Pz 35(t)s instead of MK IVs for instance in 1942?) and anti-tank guns. Artillery may have been on a smaller scale ( fewer guns per division and/or smaller caliber) with less ammo. I would welcome correction but I believe that the German "allied" nations were less motorized than the German divisions (were were 80% horse drawn at best).

Bravery and fighting spirit will take you only so far.

 

[davebender]

I think that's the real problem. If the armies of Bulgaria, Finland, Slovakia, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Don Cossacks etc. had been well equipped the Soviet Union would have been in serious trouble. Collectively they would have outnumbered the Red Army, especially after the fall of 1941.

 

[Capt. Vick]

Thanks goodness they weren't though right?...

 

[davebender]

That depends on your point of view. Things worked out ok for the USA.

Europe more or less ruled the world during 1913. 32 years and two world wars later Europe was thoroughly wrecked. That includes nations on the "winning" side. 1913 Britain was the world financial center. 1946 Britain was so poor that they defaulted on war debts to Canada.

 

[starling]

I'd rather be skint than evil though,Starling.

 

[starling]

They must of thought hitler was evil,mustn't they.? Or am I whistling Dixie .?

 

[davebender]

The world was and still is full of evil people and they don't all live in Germany. "Evil" doesn't enter the diplomatic equation when considering national interests that are the basis of foreign policy.

 

[renrich]

The only thing worse than fighting a war with allies is fighting a war without allies-Churchill.

 

[davebender]

Enemies make you stronger, allies make you weaker.
Frank Herbert

 

[davebender]

It came as a great shock to me when I heard that England and Soviet Russia had become allies. So much so that I thought that the people responsible in London were acting in a manner that no longer coincided with British imperial interests.
John Amery

 

[starling]

Nah,not biting,I've said my bit.Starling.

 

[A4K]

For Hitler's part, he wasn't much worse than Stalin. I rather blame the WW I allies for his entry to power and subsequent exploits - how long did they think they could squeeze (monetary) blood from a stone without getting payback?

 

[stona]

It came as a great shock to me when I heard that England and Soviet Russia had become allies. So much so that I thought that the people responsible in London were acting in a manner that no longer coincided with British imperial interests.
John Amery

Old Arabic Proverb (or Chinese,depending who you believe)

"My enemy's enemy is my friend."

Cheers

Steve

 

[starling]

To the original question,no mate,they were not all that bad,Starling.

 

[bluezanzibar]

I think that's the real problem. If the armies of Bulgaria, Finland, Slovakia, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Don Cossacks etc. had been well equipped the Soviet Union would have been in serious trouble. Collectively they would have outnumbered the Red Army, especially after the fall of 1941.

Just for the record

"German casualties stood, as of 1 November 1941, at 686,000 men--20 percent of the 3.4 million, including replacements, committed since June, the equivalent of one regiment in every division. Of half-a-million motor vehicles on the Eastern Front, a third were worn out or damaged beyond repair; only a third were fully serviceable. Panzer divisions were down to 35 percent of their original tank strengths. The OKH itself rated the 136 divisions on the Eastern Front as equivalent to no more than 83 full-strength divisions."

"The Germans substantially underestimated the Soviet strength. Estimates given to the chiefs of staff in
November at the Orsha Conference put the totals of Soviet larger units at 160 divisions and 40 brigades and rated their combat effectiveness at below 50 percent because more than half of those units' troops and officers were believed to be untrained.
The actual numbers as of 1 December, according to the Soviet sources, would be 279 divisions and 93 brigades. In part, these units, particularly those from the reserves, lacked training and experience. Interspersed among them, however, was a growing core of seasoned divisions."

From HyperWar: Moscow To Stalingrad: Decision In The East

 

[davebender]

I wouldn't accept Soviet sources at face value. Falsification of official records was standard practise in Stalin's Soviet Union. That includes both troop numbers and production data.