von Bock and Voronej

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 1057
Joined: 11 May 2016 01:09
Location: Earth

Re: von Bock and Voronej

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 23 Mar 2019 10:14

jesk wrote:
23 Mar 2019 05:39
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
22 Mar 2019 20:02
We are dealing with VB's responsability in the failed attack on Voronej which induced the subsequent failure of Fall Blau.
I at least do not agree with the logic of the fall of “Blau” because of the attack on Voronezh. After there was an attack on Rostov, and this particular episode took much more than 48 hours. Halder challenged decision of the Fuhrer. As a percentage in the fall of Blau, Voronezh may be 3%, Rostov 50%. The connection between von Bock and fall of Blau simply does not exist.
You dont have to choose one diary and neglect the other, but to read both and make up your mind. From all testimonies, we can conclude that Hitler's plan was countered by some of his general's plan, VB.
Von Bock in his diary showed that there was no plan of Hitler. He simply allowed not to take Voronezh, if resistance of enemy will be particularly strong.
Hitler didnt want to strike Voronej. VB absolutely wanted to take it. Hitler didnt want to use motor. div. VB wanted to use it in Voronej. Hitler didnt want to spend more than 24h there, VB allowed himself 3 days and even more...
Between words Voronezh can be not taken if resistance of the opponent is strong and the ban to take Voronezh a big difference. You again ignore the indication of lies and repeat nonsense. In the diary there is no hint of orders. Von Bock lies?
Even Glantz understood there was a problem with VB's diary. Glantz puts the blame on a misunderstanding of VB about Hitler's orders. Thanks to Halder's diary we have a better look at what was said in that conference, and it was a bit more displeasant for VB than presented by himself in diary. VB opposed Hitler's plan and indeed sabotaged it.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: von Bock and Voronej

Post by jesk » 23 Mar 2019 19:29

Let's go back to the topic 24-48 hours.
How do you imagine the crossing of the river Don? This is a wide one of the largest rivers of the European part of Russia. Force river, create a bridgehead, build bridges. Thousands of vehicles should be shipped via several bridges or even one, depending on the coast.
Therefore, your assumption about the order of Hitler, who violated von Bock, is absurd. Only on July 4, the Germans approached the Don. Minimum one day speeding up. Before July 6-7, the seizure of Voronezh is simply not technically possible. The left part of the city is also separated by a river. For the full occupation of the city, it is necessary to overcome 2 water obstacles, with certain difficulties.

Halder's logic is absolutely clear. What did he do. Hitler ordered not to attack Voronezh, if this would lead to large losses. Hoth informed the high command that he against the storming of Voronezh. The message of Hoth about the undesirability of assault Halder equated to a violation of the orders of Hitler. That's the whole problem. Classic doublethink on Orwell's theory. Von Bock did not break orders, but actually did it. So Halder counted.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: von Bock and Voronej

Post by jesk » 23 Mar 2019 19:46

There are no problems with von Bock's diary. It is the telegram of Hoth, Halder took as evidence of disobeying the orders of Hitler.

22/3/43

I stated:
"Nothing like this. My conversation with the Führer about Voronezh ended with the fact that I told him: “As I understand it, I must take Voronezh, if this is not difficult to do, but I don’t have to get involved in heavy and long battles”. The Fuhrer confirmed this with a nod. But then complications began. The liaison officer at the 4th Tank Army radioed the Supreme Command of the land forces that Voronezh could probably be taken only after heavy fighting. Weichs held the opposite opinion, and I agreed with him. While there were discussions on this issue with the High Command of the Ground Forces, on July 6, the tank battalion of the 24th Panzer Division passed through Voronezh almost without a fight, after which we told the High Command of the Ground Forces that it would not be difficult to capture the city ... ”
Keitel said:
"The Fuhrer then said for a long time:" We lost 48 hours near Voronezh. " Apparently, he saw this as a serious waste of time. "
I replied:
“But one should not forget that the whole operation took less time than planned.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: von Bock and Voronej

Post by jesk » 23 Mar 2019 19:55

Hitler fell a victim of a doublethink of Halder too. About 48 hours he just logically calculated from Halder's conclusions. There is no problem "von Bock and Voronezh". Halder' doublethink is strongly noticeable.

https://wiki2.org/en/Doublethink
Doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Also related is cognitive dissonance, in which contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance—thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.

User avatar
AbollonPolweder
Member
Posts: 247
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 20:54
Location: Russia

Re: von Bock and Voronej

Post by AbollonPolweder » 23 Mar 2019 20:34

DavidFrankenberg wrote:
22 Mar 2019 17:00
...
Following existing sources. Yes.
It may be necessary to clarify: according to the "sources" known to you. Right?
https://sites.google.com/site/krieg1941undnarod/
Better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 1057
Joined: 11 May 2016 01:09
Location: Earth

Re: von Bock and Voronej

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 23 Mar 2019 21:49

jesk wrote:
23 Mar 2019 19:29
Let's go back to the topic 24-48 hours.
How do you imagine the crossing of the river Don? This is a wide one of the largest rivers of the European part of Russia. Force river, create a bridgehead, build bridges. Thousands of vehicles should be shipped via several bridges or even one, depending on the coast.
Therefore, your assumption about the order of Hitler, who violated von Bock, is absurd. Only on July 4, the Germans approached the Don. Minimum one day speeding up. Before July 6-7, the seizure of Voronezh is simply not technically possible. The left part of the city is also separated by a river. For the full occupation of the city, it is necessary to overcome 2 water obstacles, with certain difficulties.

Halder's logic is absolutely clear. What did he do. Hitler ordered not to attack Voronezh, if this would lead to large losses. Hoth informed the high command that he against the storming of Voronezh. The message of Hoth about the undesirability of assault Halder equated to a violation of the orders of Hitler. That's the whole problem. Classic doublethink on Orwell's theory. Von Bock did not break orders, but actually did it. So Halder counted.
Hitler didnt want anymore to take Voronej. This change was not accepted by VB who sticked to the seizure of the city. Hitler surely saw the childish behavior of VB but could not figure that VB will violate every order he gave...
Whatever, whereas VB was not supposed to use motor. div., whereas he was supposed to send them south, whereas he should not insist on the take of Voronej, he did absolutely all the contrary !
If it is not sabotage, i dont know what it is.
VB was not fond of nazism and Hitler. Many of his staff will be implicated in the 20th july plot.

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 1057
Joined: 11 May 2016 01:09
Location: Earth

Re: von Bock and Voronej

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 23 Mar 2019 21:50

AbollonPolweder wrote:
23 Mar 2019 20:34
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
22 Mar 2019 17:00
...
Following existing sources. Yes.
It may be necessary to clarify: according to the "sources" known to you. Right?
According to the sources quoted here.
If you have other sources, please quote it.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: von Bock and Voronej

Post by jesk » 24 Mar 2019 04:53

DavidFrankenberg wrote:
23 Mar 2019 21:49
If it is not sabotage, i dont know what it is.
VB was not fond of nazism and Hitler. Many of his staff will be implicated in the 20th july plot.
But on March 22, 1943, von Bock recalled a conversation with the Fuhrer. He confirmed the need to take Voronezh. Analysis of events from known sources does not confirm Halder’s theses.

Von Bock: My conversation with the Führer about Voronezh ended with the fact that I told him: “As I understand it, I must take Voronezh, if this is not difficult to do, but I don’t have to get involved in heavy and long battles”. The Fuhrer confirmed this with a nod.

Already on July 5, when Hitler expressed dissatisfaction with movement of the 40 tank corps to the east, Halder put forward theses about misuse of 24Pzd and GrD. Hitler liked Halder's idea.
Von Bock did not violate any orders. All charges are fictitious.

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 1057
Joined: 11 May 2016 01:09
Location: Earth

Re: von Bock and Voronej

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 24 Mar 2019 10:52

jesk wrote:
24 Mar 2019 04:53
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
23 Mar 2019 21:49
If it is not sabotage, i dont know what it is.
VB was not fond of nazism and Hitler. Many of his staff will be implicated in the 20th july plot.
But on March 22, 1943, von Bock recalled a conversation with the Fuhrer. He confirmed the need to take Voronezh. Analysis of events from known sources does not confirm Halder’s theses.

Von Bock: My conversation with the Führer about Voronezh ended with the fact that I told him: “As I understand it, I must take Voronezh, if this is not difficult to do, but I don’t have to get involved in heavy and long battles”. The Fuhrer confirmed this with a nod.

Already on July 5, when Hitler expressed dissatisfaction with movement of the 40 tank corps to the east, Halder put forward theses about misuse of 24Pzd and GrD. Hitler liked Halder's idea.
Von Bock did not violate any orders. All charges are fictitious.
He has been fired because of his disobedience, because of the Voronej's events, because of Fall Blau's failure.
Now, what does he remember almost one year after ? What would he say in order to justify himself and put the blame on Hitler ?
Oh... he remembers the dialogue ? Why didnt he write it in his diary one year BEFORE ?

Excuse-me but that souvenir from VB does not sound true at all.

Look at what Halder writes the 3rd july :
-the task to take Voronej is no more
-does not take Voronej under any conditions

He writes it TWO TIMES ! Cant be clearer.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: von Bock and Voronej

Post by jesk » 24 Mar 2019 15:11

DavidFrankenberg wrote:
24 Mar 2019 10:52
jesk wrote:
24 Mar 2019 04:53
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
23 Mar 2019 21:49
If it is not sabotage, i dont know what it is.
VB was not fond of nazism and Hitler. Many of his staff will be implicated in the 20th july plot.
But on March 22, 1943, von Bock recalled a conversation with the Fuhrer. He confirmed the need to take Voronezh. Analysis of events from known sources does not confirm Halder’s theses.

Von Bock: My conversation with the Führer about Voronezh ended with the fact that I told him: “As I understand it, I must take Voronezh, if this is not difficult to do, but I don’t have to get involved in heavy and long battles”. The Fuhrer confirmed this with a nod.

Already on July 5, when Hitler expressed dissatisfaction with movement of the 40 tank corps to the east, Halder put forward theses about misuse of 24Pzd and GrD. Hitler liked Halder's idea.
Von Bock did not violate any orders. All charges are fictitious.
He has been fired because of his disobedience, because of the Voronej's events, because of Fall Blau's failure.
Now, what does he remember almost one year after ? What would he say in order to justify himself and put the blame on Hitler ?
Oh... he remembers the dialogue ? Why didnt he write it in his diary one year BEFORE ?

Excuse-me but that souvenir from VB does not sound true at all.

Look at what Halder writes the 3rd july :
-the task to take Voronej is no more
-does not take Voronej under any conditions

He writes it TWO TIMES ! Cant be clearer.
The discussion began with it. You distorted sense of statements of Halder. Halder allowed a possibility of capture of Voronezh under some conditions.

http://militera.lib.ru/db/halder/1942_07.html

1. To take Voronezh at all not under any circumstances. If it becomes clear that the opponent comes by large forces, then an exit to Don to the south of Voronezh suffices. (On the available data, the industry of Voronezh is not dismantled.)

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 1057
Joined: 11 May 2016 01:09
Location: Earth

Re: von Bock and Voronej

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 24 Mar 2019 16:02

jesk wrote:
24 Mar 2019 15:11
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
24 Mar 2019 10:52
jesk wrote:
24 Mar 2019 04:53
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
23 Mar 2019 21:49
If it is not sabotage, i dont know what it is.
VB was not fond of nazism and Hitler. Many of his staff will be implicated in the 20th july plot.
But on March 22, 1943, von Bock recalled a conversation with the Fuhrer. He confirmed the need to take Voronezh. Analysis of events from known sources does not confirm Halder’s theses.

Von Bock: My conversation with the Führer about Voronezh ended with the fact that I told him: “As I understand it, I must take Voronezh, if this is not difficult to do, but I don’t have to get involved in heavy and long battles”. The Fuhrer confirmed this with a nod.

Already on July 5, when Hitler expressed dissatisfaction with movement of the 40 tank corps to the east, Halder put forward theses about misuse of 24Pzd and GrD. Hitler liked Halder's idea.
Von Bock did not violate any orders. All charges are fictitious.
He has been fired because of his disobedience, because of the Voronej's events, because of Fall Blau's failure.
Now, what does he remember almost one year after ? What would he say in order to justify himself and put the blame on Hitler ?
Oh... he remembers the dialogue ? Why didnt he write it in his diary one year BEFORE ?

Excuse-me but that souvenir from VB does not sound true at all.

Look at what Halder writes the 3rd july :
-the task to take Voronej is no more
-does not take Voronej under any conditions

He writes it TWO TIMES ! Cant be clearer.
The discussion began with it. You distorted sense of statements of Halder. Halder allowed a possibility of capture of Voronezh under some conditions.

http://militera.lib.ru/db/halder/1942_07.html

1. To take Voronezh at all not under any circumstances. If it becomes clear that the opponent comes by large forces, then an exit to Don to the south of Voronezh suffices. (On the available data, the industry of Voronezh is not dismantled.)
It means :
-do not attack Voronej >>> stay outside
-do not attack and if ennmy attack >>> flee south

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: von Bock and Voronej

Post by jesk » 24 Mar 2019 16:13

DavidFrankenberg wrote:
24 Mar 2019 16:02
It means :
-do not attack Voronej >>> stay outside
-do not attack and if ennmy attack >>> flee south
You cling to words. Sense in the following - the task of capture of Voronezh reduced by 50%. There were conditions under which the city does not need to be attacked.
A misunderstanding happened later. Hoth sent a telegram that the storming of Voronezh would lead to great losses. Halder believed him and brought all his anger on von Bock. But von Bock did not believe Hoth and attacked Voronezh. Highlighting the meaning of the charges, Halder accused Bock of disobedience to his subordinate. What is at least unethical.

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 1057
Joined: 11 May 2016 01:09
Location: Earth

Re: von Bock and Voronej

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 24 Mar 2019 16:41

jesk wrote:
24 Mar 2019 16:13
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
24 Mar 2019 16:02
It means :
-do not attack Voronej >>> stay outside
-do not attack and if ennmy attack >>> flee south
You cling to words. Sense in the following - the task of capture of Voronezh reduced by 50%. There were conditions under which the city does not need to be attacked.
Whereas Hitler and Halder agreed not to strike Voronej, VB didnt agree.
In front of VB's stubbornness Hitler finally allowed him to do so if :
-easy and quick capture
-use only infantry
-no soviet opposition
-send the motor. div. south

Anyone would understand what it meant 'do not strike it', because it is impossible to bring together those conditions...
A misunderstanding happened later. Hoth sent a telegram that the storming of Voronezh would lead to great losses. Halder believed him and brought all his anger on von Bock. But von Bock did not believe Hoth and attacked Voronezh. Highlighting the meaning of the charges, Halder accused Bock of disobedience to his subordinate. What is at least unethical.
VB disobeyed and forced Hoth to attack Voronej.
This is not a misunderstanding, it is a clear disobedience from VB who thought he was smarter and a better general than Hitler. He was wrong.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: von Bock and Voronej

Post by jesk » 24 Mar 2019 16:59

DavidFrankenberg wrote:
24 Mar 2019 16:41
In front of VB's stubbornness Hitler finally allowed him to do so if :
-easy and quick capture
Yes, even on July 6, von Bock spoke about ahead of the time of occupation of Voronezh. We are not military experts and do not know how long it took to seize the city. Von Bock considered the task coped quickly.
-use only infantry
About infantry, Hitler remembered in the evening of July 6, when 80% of Voronezh was already under German control. Information came to him late. He did not know that Voronezh already captured.
-no soviet opposition
If resistance is strong, at the discretion of von Bock. About the empty city, Hitler also said on the evening of July 6.
-send the motor. div. south
On July 3, nothing was said about it.

Your last arguments are empty. You have lost the discussion and do not want to admit it. Crimea, Rostov, now unfortunately and Voronezh. It is difficult to prove the moments of superiority of Hitler over his generals ..

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 1057
Joined: 11 May 2016 01:09
Location: Earth

Re: von Bock and Voronej

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 24 Mar 2019 17:29

jesk wrote:
24 Mar 2019 16:59
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
24 Mar 2019 16:41
In front of VB's stubbornness Hitler finally allowed him to do so if :
-easy and quick capture
Yes, even on July 6, von Bock spoke about ahead of the time of occupation of Voronezh. We are not military experts and do not know how long it took to seize the city. Von Bock considered the task coped quickly.
Only Hitler, Halder and Hoth appeared to have been military experts in that case. Not VB.
-use only infantry
About infantry, Hitler remembered in the evening of July 6, when 80% of Voronezh was already under German control. Information came to him late. He did not know that Voronezh already captured.
As soon as the 5th july Hitler realized VB disobeyed.
-no soviet opposition
If resistance is strong, at the discretion of von Bock. About the empty city, Hitler also said on the evening of July 6.
VB attacked despite all indications of Hitler.
-send the motor. div. south
On July 3, nothing was said about it.
Of course it was. Why do you think Hitler forbade him to strike Voronej and rather go south if not to allow the fast shipment of motor. div. down the south in order to encircle soviet troops ?
Your last arguments are empty. You have lost the discussion and do not want to admit it. Crimea, Rostov, now unfortunately and Voronezh. It is difficult to prove the moments of superiority of Hitler over his generals ..
It is very easy when we look at Voronej's events.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”