Tomorrow will be the 70th anniversary of the launch of the Soviet Ostrogozhsk–Rossosh offensive, which was mainly directed at the Hungarian 2nd Army (as well as partially against the Italian 8th)
"The Hungarian army is not capable to participate in such a remote operation, neither mentally, nor organizationally" wrote the Hungarian chief of staff, after meeting with Keitel, when the sending of the 2nd Army was planned.
Regardless, Horthy personally promised Hungarian participation in the planned 1942 spring offensive.
That was after Ribbentrop and Keitel applied big pressure in January '42. Ribbentrop threatened with resetting the border revisions we received, while Keitel assured the Hungarian generals that Romania would send more troops than them, so there would be no danger of a backstab. Which of course was true. Actually, Keitel used the "Hungarian army will be in Russia" argument to convince the Romanians on sending their guys.
It seems highly likely that the leadership was fully aware of the risks involved. They made sure that conscripts would arrive from all parts of the country (to balance the distribution of future losses). No district was to conscript more than 20% of it's eligible population, and they preferred the 30-45 age group. (My grandmother used to tell me that this was the local impression at the time as well - not the youngest and strongest was taken)
Even getting to the Don was very painful. They lacked heavy armaments and basic equipment. By the time the got dug in at the river (they failed to take 3 Soviet bridgeheads), their lost half their armor, all of their artillery. Local reports by officers complained about lack of basic equipment for defensive preparations, like shovels, barber wire, etc.
During the autumn some replacements were sent, but not nearly all of the new conscripts could receive rifles, had to be equipped with surplus and remnants at the front.
Food supply was under German authority, and it's hardly surprising it was lacking. Supply depots were 100 kilometers back, and not only abysmal road conditions delayed their delivery, but they tried to "save them for worse times".
With the onset of winter all that became worse. Supply got even harder to get to the troops, because horses were taken back from the first lines. Winter clothing was severely lacking.
When the Soviet attack came, a lot of the Hungarian rifles were simply frozen and unusable. There were very little anti-tank weaponry, and what they had was inefficient against the T34s.
The rout was complete, which was hardly surprising of course. Command tried to restore order with draconian measures. Military police was unleashed on the retreating Hungarians, with a few cases of mass executions of everyone who had no rifle on him.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg5.hvg.hu%2Fimage.aspx%3Fid%3D388d15e7-8ea7-4326-8a2b-d0650db3164e%26amp%3Bview%3D7fcefbf8-ac48-4ee6-aef5-32203afa118c&hash=16af578af0fb0e9265df90b90fd08d79e8e52d21)
Quote from: Tamas on January 11, 2013, 10:47:18 AM
Regardless, Horthy personally promised Hungarian participation in the planned 1942 spring offensive.
That was after Ribbentrop and Keitel applied big pressure in January '42. Ribbentrop threatened with resetting the border revisions we received, while Keitel assured the Hungarian generals that Romania would send more troops than them, so there would be no danger of a backstab. Which of course was true. Actually, Keitel used the "Hungarian army will be in Russia" argument to convince the Romanians on sending their guys.
I am reminded of a Romanian Cartoon showing the Romanian Generals in Russia and there were all these maps labeled various places in the 1942 campaign being ignored and all the generals were crowded around the map labelled 'Budapest'
:(
:yeah:
What a horror, but it was a horror for both sides, Soviets and Axis. Hungarian army seemed barely equipped, not even with nearly enough of the basic equipment.
The Russians more importantly captured the 2nd army's beet depot.
Quote from: Tamas on January 11, 2013, 10:47:18 AM
Even getting to the Don was very painful. They lacked heavy armaments and basic equipment. By the time the got dug in at the river (they failed to take 3 Soviet bridgeheads), their lost half their armor, all of their artillery. Local reports by officers complained about lack of basic equipment for defensive preparations, like shovels, barber wire, etc.
:hmm:
Not sure how that would have helped.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 11, 2013, 11:18:33 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 11, 2013, 10:47:18 AM
Even getting to the Don was very painful. They lacked heavy armaments and basic equipment. By the time the got dug in at the river (they failed to take 3 Soviet bridgeheads), their lost half their armor, all of their artillery. Local reports by officers complained about lack of basic equipment for defensive preparations, like shovels, barber wire, etc.
:hmm:
Not sure how that would have helped.
Keeping the barbers out was essential for survival on the Eastern Front. Long hair protected against the cold winters.
Quote from: KRonn on January 11, 2013, 11:16:44 AM
What a horror, but it was a horror for both sides, Soviets and Axis. Hungarian army seemed barely equipped, not even with nearly enough of the basic equipment.
That was a real problem with the Italians and Romanians as well. It was just too far for those countries to supply their armies and they were dependent on the Germans who naturally did not make their supply a high priority. And it is not like Romania, Hungary, and Italy had excellently equipped troops even in the best of circumstances.
Timmeyy busting on someone for a typo? :yeahright:
Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2013, 11:24:27 AM
Timmeyy busting on someone for a typo? :yeahright:
I always defend Tim but not this time. NOT THIS TIME, TIMSAN.
Quote from: Valmy on January 11, 2013, 11:20:59 AM
Quote from: KRonn on January 11, 2013, 11:16:44 AM
What a horror, but it was a horror for both sides, Soviets and Axis. Hungarian army seemed barely equipped, not even with nearly enough of the basic equipment.
That was a real problem with the Italians and Romanians as well. It was just too far for those countries to supply their armies and they were dependent on the Germans who naturally did not make their supply a high priority. And it is not like Romania, Hungary, and Italy had excellently equipped troops even in the best of circumstances.
yeah. I remember a story, how Horthy was angered and embarassed when he was waiting the arrival of the Hungarian army together with a Transylvanian city shortly after we got some of them back, and the units arrived on horse carts.
Also as Hungarians in Czechslovakia told "one night we heard the trucks tacking the czechslovakian troops away, the next morning we heard the horses as the Hungarian army arrived". :P
My penis was the 2nd Hungarian Army last night. :(
Quote from: FunkMonk on January 11, 2013, 12:40:04 PM
My penis was the 2nd Hungarian Army last night. :(
Underequiped for use against a drunken Russian? :unsure:
I guess mine was the First Belorussian Front of 1945-- though I guess with less rape.
Should've picked a different team.
Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2013, 12:56:46 PM
I guess mine was the First Belorussian Front of 1945-- though I guess with rape.
:hmm:
Were they completely beeten?
lulz
Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2013, 12:56:46 PM
I guess mine was the First Belorussian Front of 1945-- though I guess without rape.
Fixed I hope. :unsure:
Good riddance. Anyone who sides with the nazis deserves to die.
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2013, 01:16:57 PM
Good riddance. Anyone who sides with the nazis deserves to die.
you mean like Poland regarding the partition of Czechoslovakia?
Quote from: HVC on January 11, 2013, 01:00:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2013, 12:56:46 PM
I guess mine was the First Belorussian Front of 1945-- though I guess with rape.
:hmm:
Goddamnit. Fixed.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 11, 2013, 01:20:47 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2013, 01:16:57 PM
Good riddance. Anyone who sides with the nazis deserves to die.
you mean like Poland regarding the partition of Czechoslovakia?
That was different, it was before they were really bad.
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2013, 01:16:57 PM
Good riddance. Anyone who sides with the nazis deserves to die.
I am sorry but telling the nazis "jews are that way" also count as siding with them.
This thread gone to the shitters fast. Classy, people.
Quote from: Tamas on January 11, 2013, 01:33:03 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2013, 01:16:57 PM
Good riddance. Anyone who sides with the nazis deserves to die.
I am sorry but telling the nazis "jews are that way" also count as siding with them.
This thread gone to the shitters fast. Classy, people.
What do you want?
I vant ze Iron Beet!!
I, for one, appreciate the Hungarians' attempts to kill as many Russians as possible.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 11, 2013, 03:36:27 PM
I, for one, appreciate the Hungarians' attempts to kill as many Russians as possible.
They were better at killing Hungarians though :(
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2013, 01:16:57 PM
Good riddance. Anyone who sides with the nazis deserves to die.
Poland is still paying off their karma for having sided with the Nazis.
That said, the destruction of Hungary was deserved not because of siding with the Nazis, but rather because of their destruction of the Austrian Empire.
Quote from: Tamas on January 11, 2013, 01:33:03 PM
This thread gone to the shitters fast. Classy, people.
I dunno, man...I mean, yeah, it's a tragedy that so many Axis Minors got the shit end of the stick on the Eastern Front, and it was a horrific experience for many reasons, but for a lot of posters here,
they were the bad guys.
IMMAJUSSAYIN
And besides, they usually had black-on-gray counters anyhow. Bad guys.
Quote from: Tamas on January 11, 2013, 01:33:03 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 11, 2013, 01:16:57 PM
Good riddance. Anyone who sides with the nazis deserves to die.
This thread gone to the shitters fast. Classy, people.
Did you really expect anything else?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 11, 2013, 05:59:55 PM
And besides, they usually had black-on-gray counters anyhow. Bad guys.
The Hungarians? That's fucked up. Black or white on green makes more sense. Black on grey should be Wehrmacht.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 11, 2013, 05:57:42 PM
Quote from: Tamas on January 11, 2013, 01:33:03 PM
This thread gone to the shitters fast. Classy, people.
I dunno, man...I mean, yeah, it's a tragedy that so many Axis Minors got the shit end of the stick on the Eastern Front, and it was a horrific experience for many reasons, but for a lot of posters here, they were the bad guys.
IMMAJUSSAYIN
That's the cool thing about being Canadian. We just might be the only country in the world who has never, ever been on the side of the "bad guys" in a war. :)
:yeahright: 1812?
Quote from: sbr on January 11, 2013, 06:28:17 PM
:yeahright: 1812?
Two possible answers:
1. It was an American war of agression which we successfully defended.
2. Confederation and nationhood only happened in 1867.
Go with #2 if you know what's good for ya. My anti-Brit blood is gettin' angried. Not to Ed levels yet but growing.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 11, 2013, 03:36:27 PM
I, for one, appreciate the Hungarians' attempts to kill as many Russians as possible.
I've always suspect that American conservatives sympathized with the Nazis.
Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2013, 06:24:38 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 11, 2013, 05:57:42 PM
Quote from: Tamas on January 11, 2013, 01:33:03 PM
This thread gone to the shitters fast. Classy, people.
I dunno, man...I mean, yeah, it's a tragedy that so many Axis Minors got the shit end of the stick on the Eastern Front, and it was a horrific experience for many reasons, but for a lot of posters here, they were the bad guys.
IMMAJUSSAYIN
That's the cool thing about being Canadian. We just might be the only country in the world who has never, ever been on the side of the "bad guys" in a war. :)
Yeah, but your country is only 30 years old.
Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2013, 06:56:13 PM
Go with #2 if you know what's good for ya. My anti-Brit blood is gettin' angried. Not to Ed levels yet but growing.
Meh. You guys were the Nazis.
Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2013, 06:38:25 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 11, 2013, 06:28:17 PM
:yeahright: 1812?
Two possible answers:
1. It was an American war of agression which we successfully defended.
2. Confederation and nationhood only happened in 1867.
If you guys weren't impressing American sailors so much that they decided to join your side, there would be no war.
They weren't doing it. Canada was still groaning under the British Yoke. It's like blaming Algeria for the Crimean War.
Yeah, but the funny thing is that it wasn't the states who had the sailors who wanted the war. It was the states who wanted territory, glory and slaves.
They were a willing part of the empire and thus were complicit.
Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2013, 07:40:48 PM
They were a willing part of the empire and thus were complicit.
Complicit in liberating sailors from American tyranny?
Quote from: Neil on January 11, 2013, 07:42:12 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2013, 07:40:48 PM
They were a willing part of the empire and thus were complicit.
Complicit in liberating sailors from American tyranny?
Spoken like a true statist.
Wait Sailors? I thought we went to war because the perdious Brits were getting their savage Indian allies to attack us.
Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2013, 08:02:18 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 11, 2013, 07:42:12 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2013, 07:40:48 PM
They were a willing part of the empire and thus were complicit.
Complicit in liberating sailors from American tyranny?
Spoken like a true statist.
I am a statist.
Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2013, 06:24:38 PM
That's the cool thing about being Canadian. We just might be the only country in the world who has never, ever been on the side of the "bad guys" in a war. :)
:hmm:
Any Canuckleheads in the Boer War?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2013, 08:14:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2013, 06:24:38 PM
That's the cool thing about being Canadian. We just might be the only country in the world who has never, ever been on the side of the "bad guys" in a war. :)
:hmm:
Any Canuckleheads in the Boer War?
Yes, and the Empire was the good team there.
Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2013, 08:42:42 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 11, 2013, 08:13:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2013, 08:02:18 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 11, 2013, 07:42:12 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2013, 07:40:48 PM
They were a willing part of the empire and thus were complicit.
Complicit in liberating sailors from American tyranny?
Spoken like a true statist.
I am a statist.
I meant that pejoratively :contract:
I'm not offended by your attempt to treat the truth as pejorative.
Quote from: Neil on January 11, 2013, 08:47:39 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2013, 08:14:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2013, 06:24:38 PM
That's the cool thing about being Canadian. We just might be the only country in the world who has never, ever been on the side of the "bad guys" in a war. :)
:hmm:
Any Canuckleheads in the Boer War?
Yes, and the Empire was the good team there.
False. The naked aggression on the part of the Brits was one of the few blights on an otherwise benevolent run of their empire.
Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2013, 08:52:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 11, 2013, 08:47:39 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2013, 08:14:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2013, 06:24:38 PM
That's the cool thing about being Canadian. We just might be the only country in the world who has never, ever been on the side of the "bad guys" in a war. :)
:hmm:
Any Canuckleheads in the Boer War?
Yes, and the Empire was the good team there.
False. The naked aggression on the part of the Brits was one of the few blights on an otherwise benevolent run of their empire.
Not true. The Empire was fighting for human rights, every bit as much as the North was in the Civil War.
Quote from: Neil on January 11, 2013, 09:19:50 PM
Not true. The Empire was fighting for human rights, every bit as much as the North was in the Civil War.
You're not going to box me in with that comparison.
To quote Lincoln:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
Quote from: Neil on January 11, 2013, 09:19:50 PM
Not true. The Empire was fighting for human rights, every bit as much as the North was in the Civil War.
That's silly. The fight was about diamonds.
Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2013, 09:26:09 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 11, 2013, 09:19:50 PM
Not true. The Empire was fighting for human rights, every bit as much as the North was in the Civil War.
You're not going to box me in with that comparison.
To quote Lincoln:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
Lincoln wasn't fighting about Slavery, but the South was. Or perhaps you would prefer individualism and property rights.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2013, 09:31:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 11, 2013, 09:19:50 PM
Not true. The Empire was fighting for human rights, every bit as much as the North was in the Civil War.
That's silly. The fight was about diamonds.
Not exactly. The fight was about political and economic rights for non-Boers, who were there for the gold and diamonds.
Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2013, 09:26:09 PM
To quote Lincoln:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
Yeah, typical of a Confederatardapologist, to quote Lincoln. From
1862.
It was a long war. Opinions changed with it, including his.
The war was still about restoring the union. Freeing the slaves gained importance but was never subordinated to the primary goal.
And I'm 100% Yankee, so buzz off.
Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2013, 11:10:38 PM
The war was still about restoring the union. Freeing the slaves gained importance but was never subordinated to the primary goal.
And I'm 100% Yankee, so buzz off.
Restoration of the Union ceded to restoration of the Union free of all slavery as the primary goal, and you damned well know that.
Okay, Nat Turner.
Quit using letters to Horace Greeley out of context, gun nut.
It just hurts him to know that a Republican helped Black people.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2013, 11:18:02 PM
It just hurts him to know that a Republican helped Black people.
:rolleyes: So you think I'm racist, Raz?
Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2013, 11:25:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2013, 11:18:02 PM
It just hurts him to know that a Republican helped Black people.
:rolleyes: So you think I'm racist, Raz?
Does it matter what Raz thinks about anything?
Raz is the go-to guy for information about basement dwelling in Missouri. :contract:
Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2013, 11:25:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2013, 11:18:02 PM
It just hurts him to know that a Republican helped Black people.
:rolleyes: So you think I'm racist, Raz?
No, but it was fun to throw that one in. :P
Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2013, 06:24:38 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 11, 2013, 05:57:42 PM
Quote from: Tamas on January 11, 2013, 01:33:03 PM
This thread gone to the shitters fast. Classy, people.
I dunno, man...I mean, yeah, it's a tragedy that so many Axis Minors got the shit end of the stick on the Eastern Front, and it was a horrific experience for many reasons, but for a lot of posters here, they were the bad guys.
IMMAJUSSAYIN
That's the cool thing about being Canadian. We just might be the only country in the world who has never, ever been on the side of the "bad guys" in a war. :)
WW1.
Quote from: Neil on January 11, 2013, 11:30:42 PM
Does it matter what Raz thinks about anything?
You of all people, with your infinite knowledge know that it does.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 11, 2013, 05:59:55 PM
And besides, they usually had black-on-gray counters anyhow. Bad guys.
Europa gives the Romanians some pretty cool looking white on dark blue counters. The Finns get blue on white.
The Hungarians, though? Yep, black on grey. Oddly, the Royal Marines get the same treatment, just with a different shade of grey.