Misc > The Sage's Guild - Historical Discussion

Why didn't the Germans construct an Eastern "Siegfried Line"?

(1/16) > >>

stygN:
Well, the subject sort of says it all.

The Germans constructed a line of defences some distance east of the Maginot Line, called the Siegfried Line, in order to defend the Greater Reich from attacks from the west, however, I can't seem to find any historical mentioning of a similar line of defence built in the east? There were none in the south either, but the combined Italian and German "Gustav Line" in Italy at least gave them some defence to the south even though it didn't primarily defend Germany, but rather the northern part of Italy, and thus in turn protected Germany. The north was not (as far as I know) protected that well as it faced the Baltic sea, and the Baltic sea was in turn cut of from the Atlantic by the massive gun placements in the north of Denmark (Near Hanstholm) and the south of Norway (Near Kristiansand), as well as a minefield in the middle. So, even though the German navy was rather devastated, an allied naval invasion to the north of Germany would be rather futile. (And The Soviet Union didn't really have a navy to speak of, so no real threat from the eastern Baltic sea)

In fact, the whole Atlantic seaboard was heavily fortified! From the border of Spain to the north of Norway (At the time of capitulation there were about 400 000 fit soldiers and loads of great equipment stationed in Norway alone, and there's a bunker complex in Norway that was finished on the 7th of May 1945, 1 day before the capitulation), so it was clear that Germany really feared an invasion.

But what about the east? Why didn't Germany fortify more heavily there? And one may say that the distances was greater, and yes, they were great indeed, but to fortify from Crimea to Leningrad are no greater task then to fortify from the the border of Spain to the northern tip of Norway.

Was it simply the fact that Germany didn't really get full control over its eastern campaigns? The partisans, the environment, the demolished infrastructure, the mud? Or that they didn't have enough time? Or was it simply that Germany didn't think they would ever lose in the east?

I'm actually curious that this has not struck me before as I have watched countless hours of documentaries (some good, some crap) and read countless pages in books and magazines about this war, and I have never encountered an "Eastern Siegfried Line".

Austupaio:
There wasn't a point until it was too late. By the time is was apparent that 'the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming!' there were more pressing tasks than fortification.

Oberyn:
The infrastructure that was already in place, even before the Germans destroyed a lot of it, already wasn't that good. Certainly not comparable to Benelux/France/Northern Germany at the time. Afaik there were some plans to invade through Norway?
I think they were probably focused on all-out conquest from the start, and with such an encouraging start I doubt the idea of fall-back positions were entertained in more than a theoretical way. By the time the war started turning against them they had already reached the limit of their capacity, both industrial and manpower. Doesn't mean they didn't fortify a lot of their defensive positions as they fell back, but something on the scale of a "Siegfried Line", especially considering the much vaster distances, probably wasn't even possible.
The eastern european front had constant warfare and shifting from the day of the war declaration to it's end. Not too sure on the dates, but how much time did they have to fortify the Atlantic seaboard before any serious attempts at amphibious invasion ever took place there?

Ule:
it is a interesting question.

there was several areas of "lines" Narva being one i know off, i think basically it comes down to 3 things.

: the vast distances of the eastern front, hundreds of miles between the flanks. impossible to construct a continuous line.

: the terrain, impenetrable forests, mountains, huge rivers and swamps. id also put weather condictions here, general winter for example.

: Hitlers obsession with fortress cities. he seemed to love ordering his men to hold cities which the reds just then encircled and picked off in their time.

oh 4 things!

: the German army was one of movement (either forwards or back), especially on the eastern front, they moved too rapidly into Russia to even think about needing a secure line (one of the reasons there was lots of partisans). and by the time they needed a secure line they were being thrown back to rapidly to have time to construct one.

also not to forget the  sheer amount of man power and man hours its would of taken to build even a few stretches of line, with areas for the panzer Bridges to opporate in between would of been huge and if do able would of left very few men in front or even rear line action.

compare that to the western wall. once they'd reached the sea, they could then spend time (4years) in a static position giving time to build  defences (i know they used force labour on the Guernsey/jersey, so its said. don't know if they did on the "wall") and static garrisons who had nought else to for most of the time to build what they re told. plus the weather in northern Europe even in winter is still mild enough to allow construction works to continue for all 12 months.

though im sure some one else will come along with a much better post, and linkies

Skot the Sanguine:

--- Quote from: stygN on May 31, 2012, 12:09:00 AM ---the combined Italian and German "Gustav Line" in Italy

--- End quote ---

Not to nitpick (but I am gonna), the Gustav Line was not Italian at all...the Italians were not a part of the Axis following the Sicilian campaign and before the fight for Italy proper.  Also, the Gustav Line was one of many defensive lines built in Italy, it just happened to be the strongest and most famous.  Defensive lines might have been quite effective in Italy (both because the width of Italy wasn't extensive and allowed for practical building of such lines and because of the very mountainous terrain perfect for defense), but with places like Russia it was not a wise way of defending. 

The vast distances of Russia mean that not only is such a line difficult to build, the nature of such defensive structures means you have to spread your troops thin to defend it, which will just mean the enemy can concentrate their forces at one spot and assault it to gain a breakthrough (and then make the line useless).  Defensive lines like this, after the onset of mobile warfare following World War I, were only useful for defending small key areas such as a city with major communications or transport hubs or gaps between natural barriers.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page