Why were the Germans superior militarily

[pugsville]

The effectiveness of military units depends on a lot if soft factors like training and doctrine. This is not equal some have better training and doctrine than others. The Germans generally did these things better for a variety of reasons. They didnt do everything with training and doctrine better but clearly had a superiority in this area.

[Webdragon2013]

There was no significant innate 'superiority' in the Germany Army between 1932 and 1945 or between 1939 and 1945. Germany's early military success came from 'stealing a march' (rearming first) and by strategic military gambling.

I agree with your statement that being more fit doesn't play a defining strategic role in the German success.
However I find it hard to believe that in the first part of the war (1939-1941) the German Army was not superior to its opponents in fitness at least.

Compared to the French, Belgian, Dutch, English, and so on in the Western 1940 campaign, there are constant comparisons made in documentaries and testimonies, that the German Army were a true Army in the modern sense of the word, whilst the other side did not look like soldiers.

Of course I am basing myself on testimonies of the time, not hard comparison of the physical regimen of both militaries pre-1939. Although in my opinion, clearly the National Socialist regime compared to its enemies, put an emphasis BEFORE EVEN THE ARMY of physical fitness through enforced manual labor (RAD, HJ, DJ, and other various orgs) which the democracies did not enforce or even the USSR.

It seems to me the QUALITY of the individual German recruit 1939-1941 (early barbarossa) was of higher standard than its adversaries. Fitness, morale, and so on.

Of course if you compare 1942-1945, then IMO the standard has evened out across Armies and I believe physical fitness was equal (based on what I saw of the US Army physical training regimen and videos).

[LWD]

...
Compared to the French, Belgian, Dutch, English, and so on in the Western 1940 campaign, there are constant comparisons made in documentaries and testimonies, that the German Army were a true Army in the modern sense of the word, whilst the other side did not look like soldiers.
...

How much of this was due to "regulars" being compared to "draftees" or reservist though? Germany expanded it's army early in a very controled and orgainzed maner.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi von Shadewald,

The Talmud is NOT the Bible, be it the Jewish or Christian versions.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Webdragon2013,

You write "In numerous documentaries and testimonies, I have heard mention from the Russian civilians that the German soldiers they saw "looked more like athletes than soldiers"."

Could we have a few of these sources please?

It is self evident that most Germans had better nutrition than most Russians of the era, but I have never heard that particular quote before. It fits so comfortably with the Nazi self-image of Germans as some sort of master race that it could have come straight out of the mouth of Goebbels.

One more thing, the most important advantages Nazi Germany had over its opponents owed far more to the German than the Nazi side of that pairing. Society was already well disciplined with a strong work ethic. Germany already had a superior military tradition. It was already highly industrialized. Its education system was very advanced. Its scientists and technicians were amongst the best in the world. It had twice the population of even the biggest of its immediate neighbours (France). The better condition of German manpower is one of the things that the Nazis can take no credit for, as the Army of 1939-42, when it was in the ascendant, had their formative years before the Nazis gained power.

Basically the Nazis were the equivalent of a "joy rider" seizing the wheel of a Formula 1 car. The ride was fast, due to the qualities of the vehicle, but brief, due to the limitations of the driver.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Webdragon2013]

Hi Webdragon2013,

You write "In numerous documentaries and testimonies, I have heard mention from the Russian civilians that the German soldiers they saw "looked more like athletes than soldiers"."

Could we have a few of these sources please?

It is self evident that most Germans had better nutrition than most Russians of the era, but I have never heard that particular quote before. It fits so comfortably with the Nazi self-image of Germans as some sort of master race that it could have come straight out of the mouth of Goebbels.

One more thing, the most important advantages Nazi Germany had over its opponents owed far more to the German than the Nazi side of that pairing. Society was already well disciplined with a strong work ethic. Germany already had a superior military tradition. It was already highly industrialized. Its education system was very advanced. Its scientists and technicians were amongst the best in the world. It had twice the population of even the biggest of its immediate neighbours (France). The better condition of German manpower is one of the things that the Nazis can take no credit for, as the Army of 1939-42, when it was in the ascendant, had their formative years before the Nazis gained power.

Basically the Nazis were the equivalent of a "joy rider" seizing the wheel of a Formula 1 car. The ride was fast, due to the qualities of the vehicle, but brief, due to the limitations of the driver.

Cheers,

Sid.

I completely agree with the fact that the German population before Nazism was a good base to be exploited for war, and that Nazism didnt necessarily "whip them into shape".

As to the sources for the comments about German soldiers, I will certainly come back to you on this, but they were from numerous documentaries so hard to trace back.

It is more common knowledge rather than detailed statistics about athletic performance of German military.

Although I do know that all SS men were encouraged to be athletes aswell as soldiers (to gain paramilitary medals in various sports). So at least for the enlisted SS men it is clear that Athletic activity was encouraged.

[Hauptmannnenkel]

In my opinion the key factor for german superiority was the officers-korps.
In the beginning of the war until 1942, german officers of the lower ranks had the "freedom" to transpose the plans of the higher command in their own way. So german Army was very flexible until 1942 and could easily react to new tasks emerging during combat. So they werent obstinate like other Armys.
This came to in end after the "loss" of Moskau, because Hitler mistrust the Heer and Wehrmacht officers due to retreat against his orders.

Secondly, the german officer corps of pre war was excellent trained ad only the very best had the oppurtonity to became officer (preußische Hauptkadettenanstalt, preßische Kriegsakademie). Due to the reduce of a 100.000 Men Army, Germany had the "luxury" only to incorpoate the very best soldiers and officers in their army. That gave a realy good core for the developpement of the later Wehrmacht.

btw: The german total war-warfare (TIEFENRÜSTUNG) only begun as Todt died and Speer taking the command. But it was a long and difficult process for Speer, because the Wehrmacht wasnt in a Tiefenrüstung at all, big problems in the administration, chaotic and confusing responsinilty of the difference wehrmacht branches etc, pp.. So germany went to TIEFENRÜSTUNG only by mid 1943. Only at that time the Speer-Reformen bearing fruits.
And yes, i actually think, that Wehrmacht would have beaten Russia wihtout Land-and-Lease contract. Or that Wehrmacht would have beaten mostly enemys if able to focus only on one front, or at least having the same amount of soldiers, tanks, ressouces etc.
The allies were confronted in 44 most (yes, few "elite" divisions were there in june 44 and later in december 44) of the time by only old and ill or very young untrained Wehrmacht Soldiers. The Luftüberlegenheit ofthe allies were so heavy, that most divisions were losing material by Bombing - even ebfore they arrived the combat zone.

Im interested to see people enumerating combats where the wehrmacht lost, but was superior in numbers of tanks and soldiers. Maybe there are some situations, but im quite sure that the opposite way was regular: germany inferior, but either winning or at least hurting the enemey in an incredible way.


But the most important thing is the "LUFTÜBERLEGENHEIT". Without it, no war can be won. Germany had lost the Luftüberlegenheit in the West completely and even above their own airspace.

But all in all: we have to be so thankfull to russia (to russia at first....incredible what this country had suffer...) and their allies that they defeated Hitler-Germany. Oh man, what a terrible and horrifying world europe would have bee.


best regards,

Hauptmannenkel

(sry for my bad english, didnt speak or write english since my a-level back in 2011)

[steinmetz]

It is not even a revelation to state that the german command system has always been an important advantage Germany had over its opponents.
Military professionals of other countries have generally expressed a lot of respect for that.

[ChrisDR68]

One of the reasons I think this question has been raised is because from June 1944 until the end of the war (a period of 10 months) Germany was engaged in 5 major campaigns all at the same time. I think I'm correct in saying that no other single country has had that many major battlefronts simultaneously in the history of warfare.

Eastern Front......... with approx. 2,700,000 troops, 2800 panzers and 2000 aircraft
Western Front........ with approx. 1,000,000 troops, 2000 panzers and 1000 aircraft
Italian Front........... with approx. 300,000 troops, 400 panzers and 200 aircraft
Bomber Campaign.... with approx. 1600 day and night fighters
U-boat Campaign..... with approx. 150 operational u-boats

These figures for mid-1944 are educated guesses. If anyone has accurate figures for this period (for arguments sake lets say July 1st 1944) of what forces Germany had in the field I'd be fascinated to see them

[fuser]

I am pretty sure British and Americans fought in more fronts than germans i.e. you are forgetting the whole Pacific war.

Beside I don't think being caught in so many different fronts at the same time is impressive in fact one would think its a blunder on strategic scale.

[fuser]

wtf you are talking about, try to be more clear rather than childish, "boo hoo you are xyz, I am not talking to you". :roll:

Militarians disagree with me that multi front wars are bad, who are these militarians?

Historians disagree with me that Americans and British fought in more fronts than Germans when counting the pacific war and european war, who are these historians?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Chris DR68,

I would suggest that, as Germany was defeated on all those fronts and lost half of all its casualties in those last 10 months, this over extension is more a measure of its weakness than its military superiority. At the end of them the UK, US and USSR each ended up with over 3 million German prisoners in their hands and in possession of virtually every last German aircraft and U-boat.

Anyone can run multiple fronts and lose!

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sid Guttridge]

What do you mean?

The Wehrmacht was certainly weak relative to the task it set itself and was totally annihilated.

Consider this: Nazi Germany only ever conquered countries that had only half its poulation or less. The Reich contained 80 million Germans. Its biggest conquest, France, had only a little over 40 million.

Cheers,

Sid.

[fuser]

Germany didn't won in Russia, the revolution was as much as a surprise to Germans as allies and it was the revolution which put Russia (and resulting civil war) out of war and not Germany.

Besides Britain did won against great powers in 18th and 19th century, seven years war, napolenic wars, crimean war etc etc but I fail to see how is this relevant to what Sid said.

[Harro]

so fvcking ridicilous. but nevertheless, as i wrote, i'll ignore your comments

I've got this feeling that you're not going to last very long in this forum if you do not change your attitude.