Heeresgruppe B (Army Group B)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

RECORDS OF GERMAN FIELD COMMANDS, ARMY GROUPS (PART II) Heeresgruppe B (Army Group B) Army Group B was formed from the prior Army Group North on October 5, 1939, and was placed in the West until September 1940 when it was moved, after a short stay in Germany, to the German-Soviet border area in occupied Poland. On April 1, 194-1, it was renamed Army Group Center. Army Group South was designated Army Group B in July 194-2 and controlled the armies advancing in the region between Stalingrad and Kursk. Disbanded in February 194-3 it was re-formed in May 194-3 as OKW-Auffrischungs- stab Rommel. In July 194-3 it was reorganized as Army Group B and was located in south Germany, the Balkans, north Italy, and France. The Army Group was charged with control of anti-invasion forces along the Channel coast and was commanded by Gen, Erwin Rommel until July 1944-• Field Marshal Guenter von Kluge took it over for a short time and from August 18, 1944, until the capitulation it was under Field Marshal Walter Model. Army Group B took part in operations in France and controlled the Ardennes counteroffensive,* Item Item No. Roll 1st Frame Ic, Anlage zum T'atigkeitsbericht. Reports relating to the political and military situation in Italy, Italy's capitulation, and disarmament of Italian units; also includes German military communiques. Jul 30 - Nov 14-, 194-3• 49354 276 Ic, Meldungen. Daily activity reports covering Allied progress in France. Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1944. 65881/1-2 276 195 Ic, Meldungen. Daily reports relating to activities of Allied units on the western front. 65881/4- 277- 1 Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1944. 65881/7 278 395 la, Heeresbefehle. Military orders and instructions for strict enforcement of combat re- quirements and for severe measures to be taken against offenders. Dec 2, 1944 - Apr 4, 1945. 75145/2 278 1067 la, Oberkommando der Heeresgruppe B, Der Adjutant. Activity reports and key correspondence between military cojrananders (Rommel, Kluge, and subordinates) concerning the Normandy front. Jun 6 - Oep 24, 1944. 85604 278 1246 The greater part of the records of Army Group B are described in Guide No. 40, Army Groups (Part I)..

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Order of Battle, Mid-September 1940 Army Group a Commander-In-Chief
Operation “Seelöwe” (Sea Lion) Order of Battle, mid-September 1940 Army Group A Commander-in-Chief: Generalfeldmarschall Gerd von Rundstedt Chief of the General Staff: General der Infanterie Georg von Sodenstern Operations Officer (Ia): Oberst Günther Blumentritt 16th Army Commander-in-Chief: Generaloberst Ernst Busch Chief of the General Staff: Generalleutnant Walter Model Operations Officer (Ia): Oberst Hans Boeckh-Behrens Luftwaffe Commander (Koluft) 16th Army: Oberst Dr. med. dent. Walter Gnamm Division Command z.b.V. 454: Charakter als Generalleutnant Rudolf Krantz (This staff served as the 16th Army’s Heimatstab or Home Staff Unit, which managed the assembly and loading of all troops, equipment and supplies; provided command and logistical support for all forces still on the Continent; and the reception and further transport of wounded and prisoners of war as well as damaged equipment. General der Infanterie Albrecht Schubert’s XXIII Army Corps served as the 16th Army’s Befehlsstelle Festland or Mainland Command, which reported to the staff of Generalleutnant Krantz. The corps maintained traffic control units and loading staffs at Calais, Dunkirk, Ostend, Antwerp and Rotterdam.) FIRST WAVE XIII Army Corps: General der Panzertruppe Heinric h-Gottfried von Vietinghoff genannt Scheel (First-wave landings on English coast between Folkestone and New Romney) – Luftwaffe II./Flak-Regiment 14 attached to corps • 17th Infantry Division: Generalleutnant Herbert Loch • 35th Infantry Division: Generalleutnant Hans Wolfgang Reinhard VII Army
[Show full text]
Airpower in the Battle of the Bulge: a Case for Effects-‐‑Based Operations?
Journal of Military and Strategic VOLUME 14, ISSUE 1, FALL 2011 Studies Airpower in the Battle of the Bulge: A Case for Effects-Based Operations? Harold R. Winton ȱ ȱ ǳȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ throughout are those of a campaign on land in which the primary problem at the time is the defeat of an enemy army in the field.1 J.C. Slessor, 1936 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȃȱ work, Air Power and Armies, the published version of lectures he presented to his army brethren at the Staff College, Camberley in the mid-ŗşřŖǯȱ ȱ Ȃȱ ǰȱ ȱ paper is focused historically on an air effort to defeat an enemy army, or in this case an army groupȯField Marshal ȱȂȱ¢ȱ ȱǰȱȱȱȱ to which Adolf Hitler entrusted his last, desperate gamble to win World War IIȯa campaign that became known in history as the Battle of the Bulge. But in keeping with ȱ ȱ ȱ ȃ ȱ ǰȄȱ t will relate the course and consequences of that campaign to an ongoing doctrinal debate in the American armed forces over a concept known as Effects-Based Operations, or EBO. The issue on the table is to determine the 1 J.C. Slessor, Air Power and Armies (London: Oxford University Press, 1936), p. xi. ©Centre of Military and Strategic Studies, 2011 ISSN : 1488-559X JOURNAL OF MILITARY AND STRATEGIC STUDIES extent to which the evidence of using airpower in the Bulge confirms, qualifies, or refutes the tenets of EBO. While this question may seem somewhat arcane, it is not without consequence.
[Show full text]
Fighting Patton Photographs
Fighting Patton Photographs [A]Mexican Punitive Expedition pershing-villa-obregon.tif: Patton’s first mortal enemy was the commander of Francisco “Pancho” Villa’s bodyguard during the Mexican Punitive Expedition. Left to right: General Álvaro Obregón, Villa, Brig. Gen. John Pershing, Capt. George Patton. [A]World War I Patton_France_1918.tif: Col. George Patton with one of his 1st Tank Brigade FT17s in France in 1918. Diepenbroick-Grüter_Otto Eitel_Friedrich.tif: Prince Freiherr von.tif: Otto Freiherr Friedrich Eitel commanded the von Diepenbroick-Grüter, 1st Guards Division in the pictured as a cadet in 1872, Argonnes. commanded the 10th Infantry Division at St. Mihiel. Gallwitz_Max von.tif: General Wilhelm_Crown Prince.tif: Crown der Artillerie Max von Prince Wilhelm commanded the Gallwitz’s army group defended region opposite the Americans. the St. Mihiel salient. [A]Morocco and Vichy France Patton_Hewitt.tif: Patton and Rear Admiral Henry Kent Hewitt, commanding Western Naval Task Force, aboard the Augusta before invading Vichy-controlled Morocco in Operation Torch. NoguesLascroux: Arriving at Fedala to negotiate an armistice at 1400 on 11 November 1942, Gen. Charles Noguès (left) is met by Col. Hobart Gay. Major General Auguste Lahoulle, Commander of French Air Forces in Morocco, is on the right. Major General Georges Lascroux, Commander in Chief of Moroccan troops, carries a briefcase. Noguès_Charles.tif: Charles Petit_Jean.tif: Jean Petit, Noguès, was Vichy commander- commanded the garrison at in-chief in Morocco. Port Lyautey. (Courtesy of Stéphane Petit) [A]The Axis Powers Patton_Monty.tif: Patton and his rival Gen. Bernard Montgomery greet each other on Sicily in July 1943. The two fought the Axis powers in Tunisia, Sicily, and the European theater.
[Show full text]
A War of Reputation and Pride
A War of reputation and pride - An examination of the memoirs of German generals after the Second World War. HIS 4090 Peter Jørgen Sager Fosse Department of Archaeology, Conservation and History University of Oslo Spring 2019 1 “For the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest -- but the myth -- persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.” – John F. Kennedy, 19621 1John F. Kennedy, Yale University Commencement Address, https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkyalecommencement.htm, [01.05.2019]. 2 Acknowledgments This master would not have been written without the help and support of my mother, father, friends and my better half, thank you all for your support. I would like to thank the University Library of Oslo and the British Library in London for providing me with abundant books and articles. I also want to give huge thanks to the Military Archive in Freiburg and their employees, who helped me find the relevant materials for this master. Finally, I would like to thank my supervisor at the University of Oslo, Professor Kim Christian Priemel, who has guided me through the entire writing process from Autumn 2017. Peter Jørgen Sager Fosse, Oslo, 01.05.2019 3 Contents: Introduction………………………………………………………………………...………... 7 Chapter 1, Theory and background………………………………………………..………17 1.1 German Military Tactics…………………………………………………..………. 17 1.1.1 Blitzkrieg, Kesselschlacht and Schwerpunkt…………………………………..……. 17 1.1.2 Examples from early campaigns……………………………………………..……… 20 1.2 The German attack on the USSR (1941)……………………………..…………… 24 1.2.1 ‘Vernichtungskrieg’, war of annihilation………………………………...………….. 24 1.2.2 Operation Barbarossa………………………………………………..……………… 28 1.2.3 Operation Typhoon…………………………………………………..………………. 35 1.2.4 The strategic situation, December 1941…………………………….……………….
[Show full text]
WHO's WHO in the WAR in EUROPE the War in Europe 7 CHARLES DE GAULLE
who’s Who in the War in Europe (National Archives and Records Administration, 342-FH-3A-20068.) POLITICAL LEADERS Allies FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT When World War II began, many Americans strongly opposed involvement in foreign conflicts. President Roosevelt maintained official USneutrality but supported measures like the Lend-Lease Act, which provided invaluable aid to countries battling Axis aggression. After Pearl Harbor and Germany’s declaration of war on the United States, Roosevelt rallied the country to fight the Axis powers as part of the Grand Alliance with Great Britain and the Soviet Union. (Image: Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-128765.) WINSTON CHURCHILL In the 1930s, Churchill fiercely opposed Westernappeasement of Nazi Germany. He became prime minister in May 1940 following a German blitzkrieg (lightning war) against Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. He then played a pivotal role in building a global alliance to stop the German juggernaut. One of the greatest orators of the century, Churchill raised the spirits of his countrymen through the war’s darkest days as Germany threatened to invade Great Britain and unleashed a devastating nighttime bombing program on London and other major cities. (Image: Library of Congress, LC-USW33-019093-C.) JOSEPH STALIN Stalin rose through the ranks of the Communist Party to emerge as the absolute ruler of the Soviet Union. In the 1930s, he conducted a reign of terror against his political opponents, including much of the country’s top military leadership. His purge of Red Army generals suspected of being disloyal to him left his country desperately unprepared when Germany invaded in June 1941.
[Show full text]
Unit I Spiral Exam – World War II (75 Points Total) PLEASE DO NO
Mr. Huesken 10th Grade United States History II Unit I Spiral Exam – World War II (75 points total) PLEASE DO NO WRITE ON THIS TEST DIRECTIONS – Please answer the following multiple-choice questions with the best possible answer. No answer will be used more than once. (45 questions @ 1 point each = 45 points) 1) All of the following were leaders of totalitarian governments in the 1930’s and 1940’s except: a. Joseph Stalin b. Francisco Franco. c. Benito Mussolini d. Neville Chamberlain. 2) In what country was the Fascist party and government formed? a. Italy b. Japan c. Spain d. Germany 3) The Battle of Britain forced Germany to do what to their war plans in Europe in 1942? a. Join the Axis powers. b. Fight a three-front war. c. Put off the invasion of Britain. d. Enter into a nonaggression pact with Britain. 4) The Nazis practiced genocide toward Jews, Gypsies, and other “undesirable” peoples in Europe. What does the term “genocide” mean? a. Acting out of anti-Semitic beliefs. b. Deliberate extermination of a specific group of people. c. Terrorizing of the citizens of a nation by a government. d. Killing of people for the express purpose of creating terror. 5) The term “blitzkrieg” was a military strategy that depended on what? a. A system of fortifications. b. Out-waiting the opponent. c. Surprise and quick, overwhelming force. d. The ability to make a long, steady advance. 6) In an effort to avoid a second “world war”, when did the Britain and France adopt a policy of appeasement toward Germany? a.
[Show full text]
Erwin Rommel Account of Blitzkrieg
Blitzkrieg, 1940 Directions: Read and annotate the secondary source description of German Blitzkrieg and the primary source account by German General Rommel. Then, write a fake primary source from the perspective of a person living in France, either a soldier or a civilian, describing the experience from their perspective. The period between Germany's defeat of Poland in October 1939 and her invasion of Norway in April 1940 is often referred to as the "Phony War." Not much happened. The French stiffened their defenses while the British moved troops to the continent. The British wanted to send their air force to bomb targets inside Germany but were persuaded not to by the French who feared German reprisal. The major activity consisted of dueling propaganda messages blared from loud speakers across the German and French lines. The French, feeling secure behind their Maginot Line, were ready to fight World War I all over again - a war of defense. Hitler had other ideas. In order to isolate the iron ore resources of Sweden, and secure his northern flank, Hitler invaded Norway and Denmark on April 9. The next blow came a month later. In the early morning darkness of May 10, the Germans unleashed their Blitzkrieg against the Netherlands and Belgium. The attack sent the defending troops reeling. The roads overflowed with refugees fleeing the front. French and British troops rushing to the rescue were caught in the headlong retreat and pushed back. German dive-bombers - the Stukas - filled the sky, strafing the retreating mix of civilians and soldiers with machine gun and bomb.
[Show full text]
Adams on Hürter, 'Hitlers Heerführer: Die Deutschen Oberbefehlshaber Im Krieg Gegen Die Sowjetunion 1941/42'
H-German Adams on Hürter, 'Hitlers Heerführer: Die deutschen Oberbefehlshaber im Krieg gegen die Sowjetunion 1941/42' Review published on Thursday, November 1, 2007 Johannes Hürter. Hitlers Heerführer: Die deutschen Oberbefehlshaber im Krieg gegen die Sowjetunion 1941/42. München: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, 2006. 719 Seiten. EUR 49.80 (cloth), ISBN 978-3-486-57982-6. Reviewed by Bianka Adams (Defense Threat Reduction Agency)Published on H-German (November, 2007) They Were Hitler's Generals They were his contemporaries, shared his anti-communism and--even if not to the same degree-- his antisemitism.[1] They experienced Germany's surrender in World War I and the turmoil that gripped the country in its aftermath as traumatic, life-altering events that shattered their world. They were the twenty-five generals who led the Wehrmacht in Adolf Hitler's war of annihilation against the Soviet Union. After the end of World War II, when military tribunals tried them as suspected war criminals, they defended their actions by shifting the blame for the killings of millions of Soviet Russian prisoners of war, civilians, and Jews to the dictator. Later, they perpetuated the myth of their own powerlessness in the face of Nazi terror with the (unwitting) help of the U.S. Army's Historical Division's Foreign Military Studies, which employed them to write about the German war effort on all fronts--especially in the East. The challenge for an author of another book about this group of much- studied and -publicized generals--among them famous names such as Heinz Guderian, Erich von Manstein, Fedor von Bock, Günther von Kluge, Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb, Walter Model, and Friedrich Paulus--is to offer a fresh perspective and to present new research to contribute to a better understanding of their motives.
[Show full text]
The Wehrmacht Retreats: Fighting a Lost War, 1943
31 July 1012 2012012222––––043043 Robert M. Citino, The Wehrmacht Retreats: Fighting a Lost War, 1943. Lawrence: Univ. Press of Kansas, 2012. Pp. 428. ISBN 978978––––0000––––700670067006––––182618261826––––2.2.2.2. Review bybyby Jeff Rutherford, Wheeling Jesuit University ((([email protected]([email protected]@wju.edu)))).... In The Wehrmacht Retreats , Robert Citino (Univ. of North Texas) continues his campaign to rescue the his- tory of operational warfare from the dark shadows of academia. He has published extensively in the subject area for both scholarly and, increasingly, popular audiences. 1 More specifically, he has focused on the Ger- man approach to warfare. While the present volume may stand on its own, it would most profitably be read in conjunction with two of his previous studies—The German Way of War and Death of the Wehrmacht (see note 1). In this trilogy, Citino examines the use—both successful and unsuccessful—of Bewegungskrieg (war of movement) in various wars fought by the Prussian/German state. As the title here suggests, Citino is primarily interested in “how … a military establishment historically configured for Bewegungskrieg—violent aggression, relentless assault, and mobile offensive operations—react[ed] when it suddenly and unexpect- edly [found] itself thrown on the defensive” (xxviii) after Germany lost the initiative in World War II. Citino concentrates on the Western Allies’ invasions of North Africa and Italy and the challenges faced by the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front at Kharkov and Kursk to “describe the mentalités of the German military caste in a period when the fortunes of war had definitely turned against the Wehrmacht” (xxiv).
[Show full text]
Airpower in the Battle of the Bulge: a Case for Effects-Based Operations?
Journal of Military and Strategic VOLUME 14, ISSUE 1, FALL 2011 Studies Airpower in the Battle of the Bulge: A Case for Effects-Based Operations? Harold R. Winton It should …be clearly understood that the conditions envisioned throughout are those of a campaign on land in which the primary problem at the time is the defeat of an enemy army in the field.1 J.C. Slessor, 1936 These words were penned in the introduction to Wing Commander Slessor’s work, Air Power and Armies, the published version of lectures he presented to his army brethren at the Staff College, Camberley in the mid-1930s. Like Slessor’s work, this paper is focused historically on an air effort to defeat an enemy army, or in this case an army group—Field Marshal Walter Model’s Army Group B, the operational formation to which Adolf Hitler entrusted his last, desperate gamble to win World War II—a campaign that became known in history as the Battle of the Bulge. But in keeping with the theme of “New Perspectives,” it will relate the course and consequences of that campaign to an ongoing doctrinal debate in the American armed forces over a concept known as Effects-Based Operations, or EBO. The issue on the table is to determine the 1 J.C. Slessor, Air Power and Armies (London: Oxford University Press, 1936), p. xi. ©Centre of Military and Strategic Studies, 2011 ISSN : 1488-559X JOURNAL OF MILITARY AND STRATEGIC STUDIES extent to which the evidence of using airpower in the Bulge confirms, qualifies, or refutes the tenets of EBO.
[Show full text]
Rulers and Generals
Rulers and Generals Jeremy Kedziora Randall W. Stone October 22, 2009 Abstract Democratic states win more of the wars they fight, win them more quickly, and pay lower costs than do autocratic states. We offer a novel explanation for this observation: democratic states are more successful in war because autocrats are more likely to suffer from a commitment problem that prevents their generals from using their expertise on the battlefield. We derive this argument from a two-period model with incomplete information in which battles allow rulers make inferences regarding the competence of generals. We illustrate our argument with examples from World War II. To keep you is no benefit. To destroy you is no loss. ∼ the Khmer Rouge ...in this country, it is wise to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others... ∼ Voltaire’s Candide 1 Introduction Democratic states win more of the wars they fight, win them more quickly, and pay lower costs than do autocratic states (Lake 1992; Siverson 1995; Bennett and Stam 1996; Reiter and Stam 1998a). Explanations for this democratic wartime advantage either suggest that democracies are better at prosecuting war than autocracies (e.g. Reiter and Stam 1998b, Lake 1992, Bueno de Mesquita et al. 1999) or suggest that democratic states are more careful about selecting which wars to fight (e.g. Reiter and Stam 1998a). We argue that each of these arguments is either in- complete or unsupported by subsequent empirical research, and so none of them has presented a convincing mechanism to account for the democratic advantage. We suggest that the mecha- nism is delegation: democracies are better able to take advantage of the skills and expertise of battlefield commanders because they are better able to make credible commitments.
[Show full text]
The Clean Wehrmacht: Myths About German War Crimes Then and Now
Georgia Southern University Digital Commons@Georgia Southern University Honors Program Theses 2020 The Clean Wehrmacht: Myths about German War Crimes Then and Now Narayan J. Saviskas Jr. Georgia Southern University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/honors-theses Part of the European History Commons, Military History Commons, Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Saviskas, Narayan J. Jr., "The Clean Wehrmacht: Myths about German War Crimes Then and Now" (2020). University Honors Program Theses. 474. https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/honors-theses/474 This thesis (open access) is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. It has been accepted for inclusion in University Honors Program Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Clean Wehrmacht: Myths about German War Crimes Then and Now An Honors Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Honors in the Department of History. By Narayan Saviskas Under the mentorship of Dr. Brian Feltman. ABSTRACT On October 1st, 1946, the Nuremberg high command trails ended. The executions and life sentences of representatives of the German military and political elite were carried out by the Allied powers. At the time, the Soviet Union posed a greater threat than the Germans tried at Nuremberg. Years later, on October 9th, 1950, former officers of the German military gathered in Himmerod Abbey. Together they wrote the Himmerod Memorandum, which laid the foundation of the German rearmament and called for the release of German soldiers (Wehrmacht) and Schutzstaffel (SS) members convicted of war crimes.
[Show full text]