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

[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]

the combined Italian and German "Gustav Line" in Italy

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.

[stygN]

In reply to Austupaio <<<Well.. The Russians came a bit earlier then the 7th of May 1945, when Germany still fortified against an allied invasion in Norway, even though the Russians were done taking countries, done taking provinces, done taking towns, and were now taking streets in Berlin, they still built fortifications against invasions that would never happen. And yes, I guess fortifications were built in Germany that were finished later then the one in Norway, but I still find it strange that they would sacrifice so much to defend Norway even though all it's purpose had been long lost (bases for submarines and the navy, airfields (that were basically never used) as well as the iron ore from Kiruna (Sweden) shipped through Narvik)

And I didn't mean that they should have built a wall from the Crimea to Leningrad, because the time would have been too short. But from Danzig to Italy perhaps? In 1939? They would have plenty of time.

To simply say that the Russians came too fast is not answer enough. Remember that Germany had over a year to build a wall from Danzig to Italy with only England to worry about.>>>



In reply to Oberyn <<<If you mean that the allied had plans to invade Norway, then yes, they had. My rant on that part was the fact that Germany still defended and strengthened the defence of an area that was not effected by the war in the end game (apart from skirmishes in the far north of Norway between Germans and Russians. (The Russians kindly withdrew from Norway when Germany capitulated)).

However, I do believe you meant "even before the Russians destroyed a lot of it", as the Russians destroyed basically everything during their scorched earth tactic. And I see what you mean too, but I didn't really mean the Atlantic wall, I meant the Siegfried Line. And the Siegfried Line was designed to defend Germany, not Europe. So why not build one in the east? Perhaps, as I suggested, from Danzig to Italy?

However, I entertain your thought of "We're never going to lose this campaign, so screw the wall" idea, and that's my main hypothesis along with the fact that the infrastructure was bad.>>>



In reply to Ule <<<As mentioned before, I did no intend that Germany should have built a wall of the same scale as the Atlantic wall, but rather the Siegfried line that just defended Germany. And again, as mentioned before, I do believe it would have been possible for Germany to construct a wall between for instance Danzig and Italy.

This wall would not be much grater then the Siegfried Line, and would not hit the worst infrastructure and terrain in the east.

Hitlers obsession with fortress cities was actually not a bad idea. The best place to fight a defensive battle is in your own city. However, one could assume (as you do) that this would have weakened Hitlers ambitions of great fortifications, but again I must point to the insanely vast fortifications in the Siegfried Line and the Atlantic wall (and the Gustav Line).

And yes, the German army was a moving army, but they still did VERY well in static positions, especially with their SS units. But then again, they worked best in cities, so that falls back to the last argument.

When it comes to manpower, the Germans didn't lack anything. They employed (well that's not a very good term, but what else should I say?) millions of Russian prisoners of war to work for them, and (sorry for using Norway as an example yet another time) in Norway all the fortifications were built by prisoners of war.

Manpower and distance was not the problem, and mobility was more a perk then a "must have" with the German forces, so why? Why didn't they construct an "Eastern Siegfried Line"?>>>



In reply to Skot the Sanguine <<<Yes, I know that the Gustav Line was strictly a German effort, but there were still Italians willing to fight for the Germans, so I thought I'd give them some of the "honour".

Though again, as with all the others, I did not mean that Germany should have built a wall from the Crimea to Leningrad, but rather from Danzig to Italy. More like the Siegfried Line.

Apart from that, I am agree fully with your arguments in which WW2 saw a more mobile and spearheaded type of warfare compared to earlier conflicts.>>>


A not to all: I don't think an "Eastern Siegfried Line" would have done any good, I'm just wondering why they didn't build one since they built one against France.

Thank you all for your replies : )

[Oberyn]

You may be overestimating the size and effectiveness of the Siegfried Line.

[Ule]

well what the **** do you want us to say then?!

we've given reasons, some true, some conjecture, some observed and some flawed.

and you've come back to us saying its all poo poo? well then why didn't Hitler build a eastern Siegfried line?

he didn't build one, end of, theres some reasons stated by by 4 people (all of which support each other in one way or another) and you don't agree?? why don't you go back in time and ask him yourself then, since our reasons of looking back and studying the past isn't good enough for you.

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

and you say distance is no problem? its 1338miles! from Sevastopol to st petersburg (Leningrad) and that's in a straight line and the front line was not a straight line.

here's some more conjecture: it takes 1 squad of men (10) nearly a full day to build a fox hole and bunker for those men (6foot down with log reinforcements), so we say a full platoon, would take a day to build there foxholes covering an area of no more than 50meters square? so a full company with 3 platoons with some supporting units, could only build an area of defences no more than 200meters square (that's just using logs sandbags and earth) with in 3 days to be prepared enough. and while that company is digging away it would need at least another 2 platoons to be  combat ready.

plus once that company had built its own area defences it would then need to able to make rear area defenses, comms trenches, field hospitals etc, and anti personnel and tank obstacles. id say that 1 company working at least 8hours a day would need about a week to have a sufficient area of defences (that's if we say they have prefect terrain).

so now they need to then build concrete bunkers and gun emplacements. id say about a month is needed using skilled engineers and labour (id doubt they would forced labour on the front lines, to much risk of escape or revolt, plus you'd need at least 1 guard to 5 prisoners). so that's a month to build 200ms of area defences plus you'd need all the steel and concrete so you'd need a safe and secure supplie line and a supply line  that works (so that's winter and Autumn out of the picture).

so lets say 6 weeks is needed in all for a proper defence line to built in 200ms, id dare say they would be able to have 3-4 engineering companies working side by side so lets give them 1km of defences to work on at once. so to say the terrain is perfect for say 10km, it would take the engineering division 60weeks! to build 10km of continuous "line". and April to September (the ideal months for such a project on the eastern front before the mud and snow) only gives 20weeks or so to build.

so you'd either have 4km of perfect line or 10km of half arsed line built in the season that allows it. that's if the area is peacefull enough, to allow a static front or just rearline divisions to provide combat support. because using frontline troops for defence would take men from the frontlines thus reducing your overall combat effectiveness. and neither 4km of perfect line or 10km of half arsed line would be sufficient to provide a usefull area of defence, 4km too short, 10km of half arsed line not suitable enough.

and you want that in 2153.3km of line? even building several parts at once (as you would) would still take you lets be generous, 6 years?! that's ignoring your swamps, forests and mountains. which yes could be ignored or defended with minimal amount of defences, but that's where the reds would concentrate so you'd have to provide suitable divisions for defence. and as after early '43 the germans were suffering extreme shortages in materials and men, such a project would be completely unfeasible in just man and materials never mind time constraints.

that's pure conjecture, I'm not a combat nor civil engineer. but it does seem about right to me.

[Skot the Sanguine]

In fairness Ule, he said in is reply that he was thinking more at a later period, between Italy and northern Poland (Danzig). At first I was going to respond that it was a psychological thing (meaning it was built on the German border to keep the enemy out of the "Fatherland") and also the time was insufficient for such a project in the east where they were almost continually falling back by 1944...however...a little research yielded the fact that the Siegfried Line was actually a pre-war project that was abandoned after the fall of France and only reactivated after the Normandy invasion.  Essentially it was a German Maginot line that found itself not completely obsolete and thus reactivated/renovated after the Allied invasion of France in 1944.

Thus, it was a relic of pre-war defensive war mentality that found itself somewhat useful out of circumstance during 1944.

[Ule]

ah true enough... but the Nazi mentality was one of superiority even when losing Hitler still thought he could win. so why would he build a defensive line in the 30's? especially as before '43 the German forces were almost unstopable and had rolled over all opposition.

did the Romans build a line halfway though their empire? that was how Hitler saw his Reich, hes not gonna build some defenses in the middle of the Reich.

[Skot the Sanguine]

Well, I think you are making the assumption that Hitler and the Nazi regime truly intended from the start to conquer western Europe, which I don't think is the case.  The fact that Hitler wanted to expand east for his "Lebensraum" is undeniable, but there is less evidence of such interest in places like France, for example.  I doubt anyone in their wildest imagination (on either side) thought France would collapse as quickly as it did in 1940.  It seems like the Germans were content with holding the west at bay (diplomatically or militarily) as it absorbed eastern nations, it just didn't pan out that way. 

The Romans did build Limes on their borders, which this probably was.  However, once open war with France occurred they (wisely) did not sit on their haunches and wait to be attacked.  It was also probably a symbolic gesture since Germany had recently taken back the Saarland and reoccupied the Rhineland just before the start of its construction (or planning at least).  It was essentially a form of them drawing the line in the sand saying "East of here is Germany, our land.  No French occupation forces allowed from now on."  That is my take on it anyway.

[Agovic]

Simple, they didn't have the time needed to make all that, plus it required men, and all men were already busy either building shit in Germany or fighting on the fronts.. So yes.. It wasn't possible to continue to battle and have 30 active enemy nations ( counting in Tito's Partizans, Montenegrin independance fighters, which merged with the Partizans after liberating Podgorica on 13 July 1941 <counted as the Nationality Day in Montenegro since 2006>, Italian Partisans, French Resistance ) at the same time and plus build a whole pile of defense lines on enemy soil, which was filled with partisans at that place and time..

[Skot the Sanguine]

I take it you didn't read the posts following the OP before posting yourself.

[Vermin]

ah true enough... but the Nazi mentality was one of superiority even when losing Hitler still thought he could win. so why would he build a defensive line in the 30's? especially as before '43 the German forces were almost unstopable and had rolled over all opposition.

did the Romans build a line halfway though their empire? that was how Hitler saw his Reich, hes not gonna build some defenses in the middle of the Reich.

You already gave part of your own answer actually.

Defensive lines need to be built in advance, you cannot do it when/where the enemy is upon you. Building defensive lines would(in one mind atleast) have made generals give up terrain and fall back to those lines easily. Something Hitler simply did not want. He was not willing to give up any terrain and expected his armies, not only to hold on to what they had but to take back whatever they had lost. He still assumed his armies could conquer the whole of Europe as it had done in 1940.
I remember an idea by Rommel to build a defensive line in depth with antitank artillery, as that was cheaper to make than tanks and thought to be very effective in defensive warfare. The idea was rejected out of hand.

There is no advancing done in Norway and the German forces were not supposed to fall back from the coastline, thus defenses were built there. Just as they were built along the coast of Normandy.

[Skot the Sanguine]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Line

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_Line

By in large you are right, but these would refute the idea that Hitler didn't allow them because he refused to give up territory.  That applied in Italy as well, yet a series of defensive lines were constructed and fell back upon time and again.