The Wehrmacht, History, Myth, Reality

And here Maniac you finish into serious post while you started from funny.

I think (of ocurse its only mine point of view) if Germans did not start ww2 we would not have Soviet Union into half of europe. This country into 1939 was simply too weak to conquer eastern europe (winter war was good example).

Adrian II - I can't agree with you. All the time when Wermacht was winning, they had powerful air support (Poland) of bad enemy (France, first part of war vs USSR). In the moment when enemy started using same tactics and had same equipment (or sacrificing its population - USSR), Wermacht stopped winning. Notice that at Crete elite Wermacht units had terrible loses. In polish campaign Wermacht fought bad - Luftwaffe saved them many times. Some divisions were better than polish, hovewer most of army was simply worse (good example is Mokra battle when elite tank division lost to cavarly brigade). Into France Wermacht had experience from Poland and bad opponent (we all known jokes about french morale). However since Germany lost control of air, Wermacht started losing.

And if you are talking about best German units.
Paratropers were worse than commando or Popski' army.
Polish infantry divisions took Monte Cassino.
Russians liked taking SS soldiers (or better would be say - not taking :D)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

Notice that at Crete elite Wermacht units had terrible loses.

---

Let me address a few points, starting with this one.

The German airborne invasion of Crete was a historic first. The fact that it took heavy losses does not disqualify either the daring novelty of the thing or its success. Losses were part of the game; after all the Germans landed in extremely hostile territory with roughly 25.000 airborne troops against 40.000 entrenched Allied troops.

The important thing here is that they won.

In fact the Allies were so impressed by Unternehmen Merkur that it made them decide to build large airborne divisions of their own.

The rest of your examples seems to suffer from the same lack of balance.

I don't understand why you ascribe the Allied victory at Monte Cassino to the Polish troops. Polish exile troops played a valiant role on various fronts in Europe, even in my own country (Sosabowski's paratroopers). But without downplaying their contribution in any way I think we should recognize that they played a minor part in operations. At Monte Cassino they launched the final attack together with French troops and prevailed, but only after other Allied troops had softened the Germans up. Even so, that battle saw a mere 20.000 German dead against 54.000 dead Allies. Hardly proof of Polish or Allied superiority, except in numbers.

And by the way, this final Polish/French victory at Monte Cassino was made possible only by Allied control of the air. Did Allied air support make up for the weakness of Polish troops at Monte Cassino, just as, in your view, the Luftwaffe made up for the Wehrmacht's weaknesses elsewere? I dont think so.

ll in all I don't think your examples come anywhere near to a fair judgment.

The Luftwaffe was part of the Wehrmacht, it wasn't an external organization that came in to battles to save it. That is how the Wehrmacht was designed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Those who worked in other crucial industries.

---

True enough. Thanks. But we must remind that by the end of the war even crucial industries (like V2 or jet engines) used an enormous proportion of slave labourers.

Omer Bartov's theory (one of his theories) about the impressive cohesion Wehrmacht kept until the end is that in order to maintain combat discipline under overwhelming odds the german command had to let their men loose when out of the combat zone. Beeing able to express their own brutality to compensate the brutality they got from their officers when on frontline duty. Sorry if my words are a bit confusing, I just want to give food for thoughts.

Krook, I wonder how, if german units were so.... average, how did they keep fighting efficiently until the last days?
And more (but just to bother you), I must remind you that at the time Poles took Cassino, Germans were already evacuating the place since their whole front had been flanked by french colonial troops. No prejudice to the courage of Polish infantery, of course.

Polish dictator agreed with Hitler intervention in Spain in the name of anti-communism. A reason you can fully agree with if I follow well your interventions in this forum.:beam:

“I don't think the Wehrmacht was all that great. What did they really accomplish anyway?” And if you compare with the Japanese the Wehrmacht was in fact slow. Merely the same speed than Napoleon who, him succeeded to take Moscow…:laugh4::laugh4:

The myth of the German Invincibility was invented by the vanquished to excuse the failure of the Generals (especially true for the French) and by the German for propaganda reasons.

The quality of the Allies foot soldiers was perhaps less in term of training but the fighting spirit was as good as the Germans one when conditions for fighting were a minimum balanced.
And Krook example is a good one.
Same for the battle of France e.g :
“the battle of Hannut is the first big tank battle of WW2 with 411 French tanks (3e DLM and 2e DLM) facing 674 German tanks (4.PzD and 3.PzD). On 12th May only the 4.PzD is really involved, the 3.PzD having completely crossed the Meuse River only for the 13th May. The 3e DLM (general Langlois) will have to face directly 2 Panzerdivisionen : 3.PzD (general Stumpff) and 4.PzD (general Stever). The 2e DLM (general Bougrain) will be only partially implicated. Therefore the 674 German tanks including 132 Panzer III and Panzer IV will mainly be opposed to 239 French tanks including 88 Somua S35 tanks.
Unlike the French troops, the Germans have a strong air support.
During 2 days the 3e DLM (and the 2e DLM) managed to stop 2 Panzerdivisionen and to inflict them heavy losses

Gembloux: The terrain is nevertheless favourable to a tank attack and in the skies the Luftwaffe has the air superiority. Hoepner was supported by the VIII.Fliegerkorps (general von Richtofen) with 300 Ju87 "Stuka" dive bombers and 42 Hs123 "assault" biplanes and about 130 Me109.
According to many testimonies and battle reports of the Germans themselves (Gembloux, Abbeville and others), the French artillery was very efficient in 1940 and it seems to have been often superior to the German artillery : fast responding, high rate of fire and very accurate. The French gunners and forward observers new their job and defeated many German attacks.

The assault of 2 Panzerdivisionen supported by 2 infantry divisions have been stopped on an improvised line by 2 French infantry divisions. Hoepner had actually the order to pierce the French line in Gembloux, in which he failed. The battle of Gembloux can eventually be seen as a French Pyrrhic tactical/operational victory but it is only short-lived (the German achieved a breakthrough around Sedan during the same time) and the human cost is very high. On 15th May evening, the French 1st army, although undefeated, is ordered to move back due to the collapse of the 9th army on the Meuse River.”
Extract from Axis History Forum by David Lehman

“I'm curious to know who, among German men, had the choice of not joining the Wehrmacht”: The one who were joining the SS…:beam:

“The Wehrmacht was an excellent war machine. Its specialised units such as armoured troops, airborne (Skorzeny), desert troops (Rommel) and Waffen SS were among the best of their time, if not the best.” Agree and disagree. What made the extraordinary war machine was the ability of the German to recover from blows that should have knock down any others armies… From retreating units, decimated and running away, with the adjunction of 3rd line units and auxiliaries, they succeeded to reorganised and maintained the lines e.g. after Falaise, and all along the Eastern retreat. Or even Rommel…

Quote:

---

Polish dictator agreed with Hitler intervention in Spain in the name of anti-communism. A reason you can fully agree with if I follow well your interventions in this forum.

---

Sorry but here I completely don't understand you. Really.
I don't know who could be that dictator (I assume you mean spanish civil war 1936-1939).
Please - give me lux perpetua and let me understand. I don't think you mean Pilsudski. You mean?

To reply battle mentioned by you... interesting.
Battle of Wizna - 7-10 september 1939.
720 polish soldiers, 6 cannons, 42 machineguns, 2 anti tank guns vs 42000 Germans, 350 tanks, 637 cannons, luftwaffe support lead by Guderian. His corps was stopped for 3 days.
This is unbalanced condition. And this is fighting spirit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

Sorry but here I completely don't understand you. Really.
I don't know who could be that dictator (I assume you mean spanish civil war 1936-1939).
Please - give me lux perpetua and let me understand. I don't think you mean Pilsudski. You mean?

---

I think Brenus indeed means Pilsudski, the raving antisemitic Dictator who had eighty parliamentarians tortured and killed because they opposed his semi-fascist Lebensraum policy.

I think that with a birds eye view, a litany of scoures, and 70 years of hindsight it is quite easy to say that the German Wehrmacht was an evil thing and the men whom populated knew what was happening and were happy to take part in it.

While I'm sure the testrone pumping jingonism that it offered was appealing to many young men (esp. considering they had grown up in an embarassed Germany) and some did belive in the superman myth. I don't think it's that far a stretch to assume many men joined becuase they felt a duty and an honor to the fatherland. Well that and there friends were doing it.

When you acknowledge that the atrocities were comitted and seen by a very small number of men. Many of the regular soliders simply put it out of mind or thought it was necesarry.

While this may seem like flimsy reasoning. I am always reminded of the American interment of Americans (I don't like using the term Japaneese, It sterlizes a horrid chapter in our history). The USA defender of freedom, country that was in no danger of being attacked from the ground took and held some of its citzens for four years. On the basis that they might be spying. Nevermind that German and Italian Americans were spared from this sort of interment.

If the Americans had lost no doubt that would've been a Japaneese headline.

I'm not making an excuse for the attrocities just saying that the whole suituation may be a bit more idosynchratic than this disscussion is making it out to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

The myth of the German Invincibility was invented by the vanquished to excuse the failure of the Generals (especially true for the French) and by the German for propaganda reasons.

---

No, it arose during the war and for good reason. It was only the battle of Stalingrad that destroyed the Werhmacht's reputation of invincibility. Even so, until the end of the war the opposition would usually only attack German positions when they had a clear numerical majority plus control of the air.

The fact that some French troops managed to hold them off for a day or two, as in your examples, doesn't diminish the fact that they beat the British and the French on the continent, very quickly and decisively. And any protestations that they 'only' had better materiel, better morale, better training or better officers merely reinforces my point that, on the whole, they were better. It is particularly striking that the Luftwaffe support is regarded by some as somehow 'unfair', as an extraneous circumstance like the weather or a flu epidemic. But like the gentlemen said above, the Luftwaffe support was fully integrated - as were the largely self-sufficient armoured columns that managed so many break-thoughs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I think that with a birds eye view, a litany of scoures, and 70 years of hindsight it is quite easy to say that the German Wehrmacht was an evil thing and the men whom populated knew what was happening and were happy to take part in it.

---

That's three different things. The first part certainly holds up: it was an evil organisation, even if not all members were aware of their role or happy about it.

The internment of Japanese in the US during WWII was peanuts compared to the inhumane feats of the Wehrmacht and the Einsatzgruppen that operated in its wake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian

Polish exile troops played a valiant role on various fronts in Europe, even in my own country (Sosabowski's paratroopers).

---

In my opinion one of the most heartbreaking facets of Market Garden. Anyway, on to topic...

The Wehrmacht (first time I spelled it without setting off the check! ^_^ ) was indeed a formidable organization, and even at the end of the war it was getting about a 1.2 to 1 kill ratio against the Allies. They obviously weren't invincible but they also shouldn't be casually dismissed. It is also seems obvious given the records we have that the Wehrmacht was just as complicit as the Waffen SS in the various atrocities committed by German armed forces.

The more interesting question to me would be a "what if" - what if the Wehrmacht didn't commit actual atrocities throughout the war? Wouldn't they still have a moral responsibility for military serving the Nazi regime? And wouldn't that responsibility apply to individuals who joined (without compulsion) the Wehrmacht during the Nazi era?

Quote:

---

Battle of Wizna - 7-10 september 1939.
720 polish soldiers, 6 cannons, 42 machineguns, 2 anti tank guns vs 42000 Germans, 350 tanks, 637 cannons, luftwaffe support lead by Guderian. His corps was stopped for 3 days.
This is unbalanced condition. And this is fighting spirit.

---

No that is a case of stupidity involving vehicles attempting to cross a river and a swamp against fortifications

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Busting the myth of nazi invincibility is a means of combatting it. And 'Nie Wieder', I am afraid, is not far from my mind whenever the topic is raised.

---

i'm going to stick with Max Hastings and Anthony Evans on this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht

Quote:

---

Some historians, such as British author and ex-newspaper editor Max Hastings, consider that "...there's no doubt that man for man, the German army was the greatest fighting force of the second world war". Similar views were also explained in his book "Overlord: D-Day and the battle for Normandy", while in the book World War II : An Illustrated Miscellany, Anthony Evans writes: 'The German soldier was very professional and well trained, aggressive in attack and stubborn in defence. He was always adaptable, particularly in the later years when shortages of equipment were being felt'. However, their integrity was compromised by war crimes, especially those committed on the eastern front. They were over-extended and out-maneuvered before Moscow in 1941, and in North Africa and Stalingrad in 1942, and from 1942/3 onwards, were in constant retreat. Other Axis powers fought with them, especially Hungary and Romania, as well as many volunteers from other nations.

---

Quote:

---

I think Brenus indeed means Pilsudski, the raving antisemitic Dictator who had eighty parliamentarians tortured and killed because they opposed his semi-fascist Lebensraum policy.

---

And I think you are are both western concentrated. I will not say anything about your intelligence but famous House quotation would be best. Spanish civil war was since 1936 to 1939 - it started when Pilsudski was dead. I know that his spirit was strong into Poles but not as strong.

And I don't know who told you such a idiotic lies about Pilsudski. Maybe hippies from french universities (they were always on left side) or USSR propaganda (in France you listen to them since 1917). If you mean sending some MPs to Brzesc Citadel - yes he DID. Some former MPs accused of stealing public property of great size became arrested and sentenced. Good job. None of them became killed!!!! Highest sencence was 3 years of prison - for massive stealing its rather not much.

And one more to reply on your "fascist" accusation - you are (what House like to tell). Pilsudski was actually absolutely anti-fascist. He was rather socialist but he had to take leadership because country was in danged or fascist dictature and was ruled by criminals. Then he save country. Thats why his times are being called sanacja - which can be translated as healing.
Maybe you ought to read his biography - but not the one written at Lomonosov university and then translated by french commies.

And come on - tell us more about French efforts to make Europe safe country. Tell us about Locarno and Munich.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

And I don't know who told you such a idiotic lies about Pilsudski.

---

Any new thoughts about the Wehrmacht?
:coffeenews:

Quote:

---

Any new thoughts about the Wehrmacht?

---

They were not Polish:idea2:

Yet another topic plagued by Krook and his nationalistic laughable mumbo-jumbo.

Know what dude, you're doing precisely what I said in my last post. Pointing the finger at everyone (the lame and incompetent frenchmen, the baby-eating germans who should have been whiped off the face of earth, the cannibalistic russians, and so on), without accepting any criticism made toward your country. No nothing.
In your opinion, the history of the last 10 centuries is nothing but an international plot to hamper the Great Nation of Poland (tm). I've yet to see a topic in which you'd say 'oh yeah, what poland did that day wasn't really nice'.
Obviously, it will never happen as you're too stubborn, too brainwashed, too racist and overall too much of a 19th-century loney.

Even your last topic about the beginning of WW2 is another 'Poor Poland fought and won the war almost by itself' sillyness. Would you care about the millions of people who died during the war? No, of course, writing a rant about how Poland has been abandonned is so much funnier.

In short, you've won. I now see that Poland is the greatest country on earth. Have fun and enjoy your own rants.

Guys, this is the Monastery, not the Backroom. This place is for scholarly discussion, using sources and arguments.

We can discuss the topic perfectly well, have fun, be polite and keep Krook on board all at the same time.

It happens far too often that a Backroom topic is taken to the Monastery and continued in the same Backroom vein.

Just keep it in the Backroom then. :idea2:

I've been had! The first four sources that I google, turn up 10, 20, 30 and 60 imprisoned parliamentarians, with punishments ranging from three years in prison to death. The lower numbers seem the more reliable source. Too lazy to get to the bottom of it and read scientific sources. Pilsudski 1930, Brest case for those interested.

I shall not pursue the other aspects (why do I not listen to that little voice of reason in the back of my head* and leave it be in the first place? :wall:) and now return to the regular monestary schedule, and debate only the Wehrmacht.

Have our supersoldiers been defeated yet, or are they still valiantly defending the Eastern Front? :tongue:


*Or is that AII shouting?

Quote:

---

They were not Polish

---

Not at all :) Grandfather of our prime minister was a member.

Meneldil - you are sarcastic, but you are ... right:)
I think that

Quote:

---

Poland is the greatest country on earth

---

You can think that your country is greatest too. This is called patriotism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

I think that You can think that your country is greatest too. This is called patriotism.

---

Patriotism and rabid nationalism are not the same thing. I am proud of my country, and there is very little I would like to see more than a strong, free, and peaceful Germany. But I do not deny crimes committed by my country, and I recognize that it has faults. I feel shame for some things my country has done, and pride for others.

In your entire career on this forum, on the other hand, I have never seen you criticize anything Polish. Ever. Your country, to you, appears to be infallible. This is nationalism, and not civic nationalism, but misplaced and rabid nationalism that is often intermingled with xenophobia.

Krook, the Polish effort for Europe safety was the German-Polish non-aggression pact which made Poland the first country having very good relationship with the Nazi Regime, the seize by Poland of Tesin from Czechoslovakia and the Lithuanian Polish incident.:beam:

“It arose during the war and for good reason. It was only the battle of Stalingrad that destroyed the Werhmacht's reputation of invincibility.” Agree. But it was a myth.
The French with Petain had no interest in exposing their failures and were keener to blame the Front Populaire for a state of un-preparation and the absolute disaster of their chosen strategy. So to blame the troops they sent to the battle without the proper training and to give to the Werhmacht this aura took from them the blame.
The German as well for other reasons forgot their hiccups during the battle of France overwhelmed by their victory over the French and the British.
However, the seeds of their defeat in the East were there.

“Even so, until the end of the war the opposition would usually only attack German positions when they had a clear numerical majority plus control of the air.” This is exactly what the Werhmacht did in 1939-40, creating a numerical superiority at the important point (the Iron Fist), concentrating the forces achieving a local superiority…
In fact the “pro” German sides always complain how unfair the fight in Russia was, completely forgetting how unfair the fight against Poland, Holland, Belgium, Yugoslavia, Greece, Denmark and Norway was.
They are ready to acclame the German superiority when it was them who had it all, but feel as a deep injustice when the German had the change back...
Air superiority was fine with the Stuka but not with the Il-2…

“The fact that some French troops managed to hold them off for a day or two, as in your examples, doesn't diminish the fact that they beat the British and the French on the continent, very quickly and decisively.” No contest. The flanking of the Magino line and the Ardennes crossing was a daring plan that could have ended in a disaster for the German (if the French HQ had had faith in its Intelligence and in the pictures taken by its Air recon).
But as Guderian stated, his panzers were not there to fight the others tanks but to stop them to fight in cutting them from their supplies. That was the genius plan. It worked in France because the country is small… It failed in Russia, as Von Runstedt predicted, because the Russian had space, no roads, and no petrol stations and could recovered.

Quote:

---

This place is for scholarly discussion, using sources and arguments.

---

PolandPolandPoland
is neither scholarly or an arguement , its just nationalist nonsense

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

This is exactly what the Werhmacht did in 1939-40, creating a numerical superiority at the important point (the Iron Fist), concentrating the forces achieving a local superiority…

---

Thus demonstrating superior organisation, transport and logistics. In these areas the German army had been superior to the French army (and other European armies) since 1870. It flies in the face. Why deny the obvious? And the inevitable, maybe, since Germany after 1870 was also the most advanced, most modern country of the world. And even when the Wehrmacht attacked with inferior numbers and in difficult terrain, they often did remarkably well. I already mentioned Krete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

In fact the “pro” German sides always complain how unfair the fight in Russia was, completely forgetting how unfair the fight against Poland, Holland, Belgium, Yugoslavia, Greece, Denmark and Norway was.

---

And the United States, and Britain... Germany took on half the modern world, fighting an alliance with vastly superior population numbers, resources (oil, anyone?) and strategic depth, and survived for over five years. That in itself proves my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

The German airborne invasion of Crete was a historic first. The fact that it took heavy losses does not disqualify either the daring novelty of the thing or its success. Losses were part of the game; after all the Germans landed in extremely hostile territory with roughly 25.000 airborne troops against 40.000 entrenched Allied troops.

---

Looking at that battle it does show up the importance of communications (like when you retake an airfield send in reinforcements) and logistics. Strange that fate would have these two fight again and again on several occasions.

The 40,000 went on to form the 40,000 thieves, boot strapping themselves up to mechanised infantry... :laugh4:

Crete like the U-boat wolfpack taught those under pressure what worked and what didn't. The allies also learnt about close air support and apparently better ways to kamikaze then the Japanese were using (naturally they didn't let on about that one).

Surprise, combined arms, mobility and communications all improved on both sides during WWII.

Wehrmacht started with some of the best mixes in place, they did not however have the same industrial might as others to keep up. They failed on the industrial capacity and logistics side in comparison to the Allies. Not as sexy but the Merchant Fleets of the Allies are probably a key advantage they had in WWII.

The Wermacht was no invincible, that is true, but I don't see the point in trying to argure that they weren't superior. Throughout the war the Wermacht inflicted more casualties than they received, and IIRC Patton was the only commander who consistently inflicted more casualties than he suffered, and don't ask for a cite I just remember what I read not where. That's my failing I suppose.

Let's take Stalingrad which some people use to show that the Germans could be beaten: 300,000 Wermacht encircled inside Stalingrad with no way out. 1,100,000 Russian casualties later 60,000 Germans surrender and Stalingrad is officially no longer a contested city.(interesting side-note: the Germans were so tenacious that the Russians found many of them had carved their frost-bitten fingers and hands into shapes sufficient enough to keep them pullling the trigger by jerking their arms back)

The Russians inflicted 80% of Germany's total casualty figures for the war and lost 11,000,000 men in the process. That one is from MHQ or one of the other popular history magazines. Maybe Armchair General. So in effect, the British, French, Polish, Czech(resistance), USA, Norway, and everyone else other than the Soviet Union who fought against the Wermacht only inflicted 20% of Germany's total casualties. And the Germans consistently inflicted heavier losses than they took.

Everyone involved in WWII likes to brag about how "we kicked ass", but if it wasn't so politcally incorrect for them to do so, Germans have priorities on bragging rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

No, it arose during the war and for good reason. It was only the battle of Stalingrad that destroyed the Werhmacht's reputation of invincibility. Even so, until the end of the war the opposition would usually only attack German positions when they had a clear numerical majority plus control of the air.

---

What about the battle of Moscow? Wouldn't that have done some damage to the aura given that they failed to take the capital of Russia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Germany took on half the modern world, fighting an alliance with vastly superior population numbers, resources (oil, anyone?) and strategic depth, and survived for over five years. That in itself proves my point.

---

Ah, but therein lies the fault. Germany didn't take on half the world and nearly won. Germany twice fought its equals, one by one. And won one, lost one.


The geopolitical map of Europe was radically different in 1939 from today.

Germany was relatively far, far bigger than today. Germany was as large as France and the UK combined, in population and GDP.
Germany could draw on the support of half of Europe. Many as outright allies, sveral as ideological friends.
A small remaining part of Europe was democratic. Thinly spread in Europe, less than a dozen countries. Only three of which were willing and capable to put up a fight - France, Belgium and the UK.
The last bit was the Soviet Union. Large, but underdeveloped, recovering from famine, civil war, terror, and kept together only by brutal oppression. Not, at first glance, a formidable opponent.

So half of Europe was (semi)fascist and friendly to Germany, a state second only the US in sheer size. Here's the Wehrmacht's 'stunning' achievements:

- Several isolated easy pickings against negligable resistance in 1939-1940.
- Fighting the three democracies that were willing and capable to put up a fight: France, Belgium and the UK. The first two were crushed within weeks, the UK was driven out of Europe within days. This is the one genius campaign of any relevance that the Wehrmacht fought.
- Fighting the Soviet Union. A nation in ruins, semi-developed. Germany somehow managed to lose, in a time better measured in months instead of years.

Germany underachieved in WWII. The miracle is that Germany managed to lose. The world's second largest power, that had been preparing for Total War for years, that faced an opposition in disarray in both major campaigns it fought, that was befriended by half a continent, and that had the luxury of not having to fight its two major campaigns simultaneously.



I think Germany did much better in WWI. Geopolitical circumstances were far less beneficial. A two-front war had to be fought. Yet still Germany managed to win one front, and pretty much reach a stalemate on the other. Only the inevitable loss through attrition caused defeat.

Whereas in WWII, the Wehrmacht under much more favourable circumstances managed a crushing defeat fairly soon after the war had started. Germany was rubbish in WWII.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

That's three different things. The first part certainly holds up: it was an evil organisation, even if not all members were aware of their role or happy about it.

The internment of Japanese in the US during WWII was peanuts compared to the inhumane feats of the Wehrmacht and the Einsatzgruppen that operated in its wake.

---

But the USA's back was never agianst the wall esp. in Europe.

I never knew we had so many bright historical minds here! I wish WWII was my specialty.

There's definitely some truth in what you say Louis, but you're making one big mistake concerning Soviet Union. At least in military technology, Soviet Union was on par with Germany, even ahead in some areas.

In terms of doctrines, they were again on par. Arguably, Red Army up to mid-1930's was world's leader in mobile warfare. The reason for such pathetic show at the onset of Barbarossa was in fact that new equipment was still insignificant in numbers and lacked practical testing, they were defending a border that wasn't fortified properly and most importantly, their leadership was extremely poor, here I mean political leadership, not military leadership.

USSR could afford to lose territory several times bigger than France before they got their act together.

Even with all that, Wehrmacht managed to penetrate deep in Russia. That is a feat. In hindsight, it is easy to notice that conquering USSR was simply out of Wehrmacht's capabilities so the fact that they managed to reach Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad and that it managed to fight the Red Army for four years is very much worthy of admiration.

On the other hand, this doesn't mean that Wehrmacht "fanboyism" is justified. Germany had huge GDP, production of most of strategic resources besides oil was on par with Soviet Union, even in oil the difference wasn't so great while oil fields in Romania were working at 100% efficiency. The total lack of oil for Germany happened after 1944 when SU knocked Romania out of the war. Germany, together with minor Axis allies wasn't that much outnumbered by Soviet Union, they even had numerical advantage until December 1941.

So, the image of super-soldiers, heavily outnumbered, without practically any resources and equipment fighting against entire world for 6 years certainly isn't true, but I'd say that man for man, Wehrmacht was the best fighting force of the WW2. Not by much but I think they deserve that recognition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Ah, but therein lies the fault. Germany didn't take on half the world and nearly won. Germany twice fought its equals, one by one. And won one, lost one.

---

I think you are oversimplifying things a bit.

For such a big and powerful empire as you describe Germany in WW2 the Battle over Britain was a really poor show and the huge Empire was lacking planes, then gave up because they needed them in Russia and could hardly replace their losses over Britain while Britain could produce fighters by the dozens, that sounds a bit weird compared to your point that Germany had far more industry compared to everyone else in Europe.

And then you count only the democracies as fighting enemies? What the about the Netherlands for example, whose marine infantry caused quite some trouble for the invaders in Rotterdam?! If you're going to dismiss them as easy to overrun, maybe you should include Belgium and France as well because they didn't last much longer, and France had a much bigger army(than the Netherlands) as well.

And then the Austrian Empire who...oh, nevermind. :clown: