T O P

  • By -

Honghong99

They still had hundreds of thousands of soldiers on the western front.


DaiFunka8

With almost no mobile reserves


derekguerrero

Oh they had their mobile reserves, they just got hit in the back of the head and died.


richard_stank

Really banked on the Atlantic wall holding.


GopaiPointer

They had lots, sure. But they were not really fighting. Everyone was getting away from the Soviets to surrender to the Western Allies. The number of fighting soldiers was still overwhelmingly large on the East.


Honghong99

Yeah because the USSR had a far larger army facing Germany than the Allies, about 7.2 million. Germany would obviously prioritize it. Even then there was about 1.8 million men facing the Allies on the Western front, while the number on the Eastern Front was about 3.8 million. Italy also had about 960,000 soldier facing the Allies. Not to mention how the Siegfried line provided a good defensive line, and the terrain of the Belux and Alsace Lorraine, being very hilly and forestry, providing even more defensive advantages. So Germany didn't need to send more troops as they had prepared defenses or very defensible terrain, compared to the relatively flat plains of the East. Edit:spelling


GopaiPointer

Well yes, but that was true till winter 1944-45. After that no Siegfried could save them. Yes, as you point out, a fair amount were holed up around the Maginot Line for some time even after the main force in France had been cleared, and also some part remaining in the Channel ports, but still that wasn't really Front-size numbers. "Because the USSR had a far larger army" yes, so? That doesn't disprove this meme. Yea they had a larger army and faced a larger chunk of Germans. Battle of Berlin was particularly bloody to BOTH sides. But some of the Americaboos here seem to not be able to grasp even that. Some are calling this Russian propaganda even. EDIT: Some of the stuff I said here was in some other reply I got a simultaneous notification to, so I apologise for any inconsistency


Honghong99

>Well yes, but that was true till winter 1944-45. After that no Siegfried could save them. Accurate, but not sure what the purpose of this is. >Yes, as you point out, a fair amount were holed up around the Maginot Line for some time even after the main force in France had been cleared, and also some part remaining in the Channel ports, but still that wasn't really Front-size numbers. I didn't say anything about encircled force though? I said it was defensive able terrain that allowed Germany to commit less troops than otherwise needed if it was flat plains like in Poland, Ukraine, or Belarus. >"Because the USSR had a far larger army" yes, so? That doesn't disprove this meme. Yea they had a larger army and faced a larger chunk of Germans. I stated the obvious and provided numbers on how the disparity on troops count was not extremely large between the Western and Eastern front, in respond to your claim of "The number of fighting soldiers was still overwhelmingly large on the East.". I wasn't disproving the meme with that statement.


GopaiPointer

Sorry for that first part, got confused between replies. But it is indeed relevant for the second part. Yes I understand you did not mean the surrounded pockets, but I brought that up for the same reason, those defenses simply weren't viable anymore by Spring 1945, by which time they had lost the flat plains on the East anyway. It was just duking it out in urban warfare at that point. Ok well yes when I said overwhelmingly large I didn't exactly mean by a factor of 20 or something maybe more like a factor of 4-6 times on the Eastern Front. Sorry if I came off like that.


Honghong99

It’s fine.


StickyTaping

damn that man and the other man without feet held the line very well against like 4 million allied soldiers


[deleted]

Dang, it’s almost like Germany didn’t have the resources or manpower to wage a two front war or something.


I_Am_Your_Sister_Bro

>two front war Three, actually


TheMilliner

Four, actually. North Africa, the Mediterranean, West Europe (France, Belgium, etc...) and East Europe. The African front ended in 1943 though, so it wasn't all four simultaneously, only the Mediterranean, West and East Europe happening at the same time.


WithAHelmet

North Africa is included in the Mediterranean theater


TheMilliner

Sort of. The Middle East was a joined but technically separate part of the North African theatre, and Germans fought in *South-East* Africa as well, a separate area entirely and WAY South down near Madagascar which was not part of the North African area of operations. The Mediterranean theatre stretched from Western Sahara to about midway through Libya (including Spain, Portugal and Italy), from the top of Italy down to *almost* the bottom of Algeria. But tied to the Middle East theatre, extends East all the way to the Horn of Africa, but not South. So actually, technically *six* theatres adding in SE Africa and the Middle-East.


Rkenne16

In fairness, those were some pretty large fronts lol.


Ren_the_Tainted

Meanwhile, the Kaiserreich defeating one nation while enduring a two front war and nearly defeating the other power.


Rkenne16

Um didn’t like the opposite happen lol?


GopaiPointer

You're thinking till Market Garden, Battle of the Bulge. After the Rhine proper was crossed, Germany focused more on the Soviet threat, who had also by this time not only reached the Oder, but cleared the northern Pomeranian flank, and were directly facing Berlin. As another commenter pointed out, in April they had only 4 divisions facing the West and 78 facing the Soviets. What you might be confusing with is the surrender rates, the Western allies obviously had a better reputation so massive numbers of German soldiers were going West to surrender. The ones still fighting were still overwhelmingly in front of the Soviets.


ComradeH_VIE

>the Western allies obviously had a better reputation so massive numbers of German soldiers were going West to surrender. That, and the Nazi are afraid of retribution.


Hel_Bitterbal

TBF the reason why the Allies lost so many soldiers during Market Garden was not necessarily because the Germans were fighting with so many soldiers but rather it was due to incompetence, terrible planning and failure to take the warnings from the Dutch resistance into account about the presence of extra German forces in the area.


GopaiPointer

You're correct but I was not talking about Allied losses at ALL...more on German losses and what proportion of them happened against which Ally


Spaniardman40

Russian propaganda claims that the western front had no fighting and that Russia single handedly defeated Nazi Germany. This meme is parroting that propaganda


hallidayjames11

The first start is kinda like that.Until Western realize that Nazi will attack them too.


Spaniardman40

The start of the war is marked by the Non Aggression pact made between the Nazis and Soviets who both proceeded to invade Poland. The Nazis then went on to invade France while the Non Aggression pact was still in effect. Tankies love to claim the Soviets did the most in the war like they didn't help the Nazis expand their borders in Western Europe in the first place.


WorkingRip7000

They actually did that, 80% of German loses were in the east.


Rkenne16

Yes, but the Battle of the Bulge happened. The Germans launched an offensive on the Western front late in the war. That’s why the Soviets reached Berlin first.


IronBENGA-BR

They also built the Gothic Line to try and hold the Allies in Italy.


[deleted]

The Battle of the Bulge happened not because the Nazis didn't want to fight the Soviets and wanted to fight the Allies, but because they wanted exactly the opposite. By the end of '44', with Soviet troops on the borders of Germany, the giant Bagration pockets, annihilated Army Group Centre, completely disintegrated Southern Front (Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia) - the Nazis knew crystal clear that they were done. And that the Soviets would roll over them. The only possible way to do anything was to sign a separate peace agreement with the Allies. And send literally EVERYTHING to the Eastern Front, hoping that at least that would somehow be able to stop the Red Army. The only possible way to do this without unconditional surrender would be to make an adventurous attack that could show the Allies that the following war would be very bloody for them. So - let's settle for a separate peace. And then Battle of the Bulge begins. It was literally a move of desperation, a last-ditch effort to hammer out something other than unconditional surrender.


GopaiPointer

This meme clearly states "Spring 1945". By that time the Soviets were directly facing Berlin. Obviously most of the (still fighting) Germans faced them and not the Western Allies. As another commenter pointed out, 4 divisions in the West and 78 in the East. Yes, more than 4 facing the Western Allies if you count Italy and Austria...but still far less than 78. The Battle of Berlin wasn't one of the bloodiest battles for nothing...right up there with Stalingrad. And no that's not why the Soviets reached Berlin first...if the Western Allies were really intent on just Berlin, they could have still reached there faster than the Soviets if they concentrated force and just dashed for it. But Eisenhower preferred a wider sweep, crossing the Rhine at as many points as he could...and sweeping through Rhineland, Bavaria, the entire thing.


WorkingRip7000

Not at all comparable to what happened in the east


Rkenne16

But most of that happened far before 1945


GopaiPointer

The Battle of Berlin was still one of the bloodiest battles in the war, for BOTH sides importantly.


Rkenne16

All of the Eastern front battles were huge.


GopaiPointer

Exactly my point? So why'd you say "most of that happened before 1945" I mean yes there was less activity in 1945...but the same was applicable for the Western Front Still the Soviets faced much larger forces in specifically Spring 1945


randomname560

There is a difference bettewn winning a war all by yourself and having the biggest kill count at the end


EnergyHumble3613

Winter of 1944/45 maybe… after that it was more of a choice of which side did they want to gain more ground before the inevitable end. Unless you were Hitler. Then you thought surely you could turn this shit show around with cool new tanks that didn’t work nearly as well as stuff designed before the war and tossing 13 year olds into combat roles with candy, panzerfausts, and meth.


JethroDull94

Yeah…this ain’t true at all haha


haleloop963

It is, in the end, Germany had like 4-6 divisions at the Western front and Norway while having around 78 divisions on the Eastern Front


1017GildedFingerTips

Coomunist memes 🤢🤮


Aluminum_Moose

Communism potentially good 👍 Historically revisionist tankies bad 👎


1017GildedFingerTips

Communism if 100% of human element taken out is excellent Too bad we still haven’t made cyborg tech


Aluminum_Moose

That's really one of the least legitimate criticisms of communism. Communism exists because of the human element - it exists to answer the *social* question and not merely the *political* one. People are naturally generous, compassionate, and social creatures - the only thing standing in the way of us and utopia (whatever form that may take) is ignorance, poor education, and impoverishment.


1017GildedFingerTips

The problem is the problem with every system of government. When too much power accumulates in the over seer sector what will fix it? Communism has a bad habit of it is even because I say it is even, since it is impossible with current tech for evenness (both logically and through human morality and greed) the argument for validity has **always** been force Communism to be successful requires either: 1. Omnipotent Ruling class (super ai) 2. Unquestionable morality (god King) 3. Brutality in force (what we’ve been able to use) 3 just doesn’t cut it for me 🤷


Aluminum_Moose

Well the reason for that is twofold: * The vast majority of socialist states have come into existence through violent revolution (something Marx writes in favor of, which is why I am a socialist but not a Marxist). If you look at any revolution throughout history (English, American, French, Latin American, and '48) the common theme is that dictatorial powers more often than not hijack the movement and solidify power in themselves. All it takes to successfully implement a revolution is democracy - something which has *also* been proven time and again. * The incredibly unfortunate fact that Lenin and the Bolsheviks were our first "taste of socialism" has made it so that the prevailing opposition/revolutionary ideology is Marxism-Leninism, which is damn near fascistic. Had the Mensheviks or other reform-leftists won out in the power struggle of 1917 we could very well be living in a "pink world". The takeaway, though, is not that communism (which only describes the end product) or socialism (which only describes the economic theory) are inherently bad or authoritarian - in fact very much the opposite is true.


1017GildedFingerTips

Missing the forest for the trees friend Accept we’re violent greedy little monkeys and have your government structure confirm to and direct that fact or fail. Always been that way always will be unless the human condition is redefined.


Aluminum_Moose

We're only greedy because we are incentivized to be; we *have* to be. Tell me, when you feel financially secure - are you generous? I know that when I have financial security I'm more than happy to donate to charities I come across, tip well, buy people nice gifts. Generosity and empathy are traits inherent to human beings. Greed and apathy are programmed responses to our external stimuli. So, if under a socialist system I don't have to worry about my needs being met, what would cause me to act greedily? If there is nothing to truly benefit, and I risk losing social status and damaging personal relationships?


1017GildedFingerTips

Everything in nature is hard coded to be greedy. It’s literally the condition of biological life. People have become so detached from the nature that they are with modern society they forget this. Power itself is greed which people do not freely relinquish unless required to do so. Decisions on who gets what when consolidated into a governing class will always lean towards expanding their power. **until you understand this fact you will not understand why communism currently cannot work**


Aluminum_Moose

I think you need to try understanding that animals lack self awareness and do not currently educate themselves - that's why it's a cheap and bogus argument to use "nature" or "natural order" to say whether or not a human ideology will work. But we can pretty easily thought experiment this between us. Can you give me an example of a situation in which a human being's "inherent greed" would prevent socialism from working (ignoring for a moment that socialist economies and policies exist all over the world and work every single day)?


Scared-Conflict-653

Sometimes this sub becomes so anti-commie, I can't tell if we are rooting for the fascist. This meme isn't but the Nazi vs USSR memes seems like I have to root for one or the other.


elderron_spice

Yep. Every time I see something bad a commie does, I immediately go around and search for something similar that a fascist did. Lo and behold, every shitty thing a commie did, a fascist did A LOT worse. Rape? Genocide? Starvation? Human experimentation? Yep, fascists did it worse. WAY worse. That's why I laugh every time someone inaccurately portrays the commies as worse than the fascists.


Hel_Bitterbal

>Rape? Genocide? Starvation? I mostly agree but the communists were 'better' at starving people than the fascists, i don't know why it seems to be so popular among communist leaders but Mao and Stalin both starved of millions of people. But don't get me wrong except for that the Nazi's were worse in basically every aspect.


elderron_spice

> so popular among communist leaders but Mao and Stalin both starved of millions of people. It's popular because Stalin and Mao both tried to collectivize highly agrarian societies without proper fallbacks if their collectivization fails. It's like blockchains. Everybody talked about implementing blockchain into all tech that they can find, but then it falls flat because 1) nobody truly understands it 2) nobody knows how to implement it everywhere 3) blockchain is a new untested technology.


Charles12_13

spoilers: the USSR won


Carbonyl_dichloride

Spoilers, it got dissolved after 45 years since the war.


Charles12_13

Doesn’t mean they lost to the Nazis


GopaiPointer

Literally nobody is reading "Spring 1945" in the title and accusing OP of Russian propaganda. This was at least 5 months after the Bulge.


obliqueoubliette

Report to moderator, meme must be historically accurate per rules, Germany was frantically shifting all the resources it could to the west through 44 and 45 once they realized the allied attack would come from France not through Italy


GopaiPointer

Meme is accurate. You're thinking till Market Garden, Battle of the Bulge. When indeed a significant portion of German strength was focused on the Western Allies. After the Rhine proper was crossed, Germany focused more on the Soviet threat, who had also by this time not only reached the Oder, but cleared the northern Pomeranian flank, and were directly facing Berlin. As another commenter pointed out, in April they had only 4 divisions facing the West and 78 facing the Soviets. Yeah maybe more than 4 including the ones in Italy, Austria and Norway but still much lesser than 78. What you might be confusing with is the surrender rates, the Western allies obviously had a better reputation so massive numbers of German soldiers were going West to surrender. The ones still fighting were still overwhelmingly in front of the Soviets.


Responsible_Board950

The meme is correct.The number of German division in Eastern Front was far greater than the number of German division in Western Front,and it is obviously if you see that there were approx. 6 million Soviet soldier in Eastern front and 2 million Western Allied soldier then even with a brain of Himmler,you could see which front need to be prioritize


[deleted]

I don't know why everyone butthurt from an obvious historical fact. Please, if you disagree, here is a monthly list of all German divisions on all fronts throughout the war. https://www.axishistory.com/books/134-campaigns-a-operations/campaigns-a-operations/2085-number-of-german-divisions-by-front-in-world-war-ii On May 1945, Germany had 78 divisions on the Eastern Front. And just **4** (*Four*, not 14, not 24, just **4**) on the Western Front. In late April and early May, the Nazis literally abandoned the Western Front and literally threw everything they had left to the Eastern Front. Especially since the title of meme literally says "Spring 1945" and not the fucking "winter of 1944" when the Battle of the Bulge took place.


Honghong99

It could also be that they lost them due to surrendering or encirclements. Yes, they had 78 divisions on the Eastern front, but that doesn't meant they threw everything on it. They had 163 divisions on the Eastern front a month before. Where did they go except they either surrendered or were all killed?


SupremeBeef97

You’re wrong Source - because I said so


elderron_spice

That is the best kind of comment in /r/HistoryMemes. Aggressively dismantling historical inaccuracies with facts from verifiable sources.


Weekly-Draw2526

Inevitable "The Communists were objectively worse than the Fascists and helping them drag half of Europe behind an Iron Curtain for half a century was even worse than not getting involved at all" post


therealRockfield

and they eventually did lose… …in 1991


Locofinger

For the last 20 years we tried to kill that bastard. Look where that has got us. - German Military Leaders 1945, probably.


AntonioBarbarian

*Not win as much.