The Wehrmacht, History, Myth, Reality

[KrooK]

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)

[Adrian II]

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.

[Papewaio]

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...

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.

[Snite]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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? ) 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?


*Or is that AII shouting?