Why were the Germans superior militarily

[Cult Icon]

nvm, not touching such a theoretical discussion

[Guaporense]

Even if these war aims are almost impossible?

Part of a military's duty and responsibility is to advise and council the government in military matters. In both WW1 and WW2 the military gave bad advice and council in establishing Germany's War Aims. Arguably more so on WW1 rather than WW2, but even so culpable.

Well, WW1 was a more rational war, it was pretty even until the end. WW2 continued to a ridiculous point because of the Nazis not because of the military.

Declaring war on almost the entire rest of the world and losing after nearly 6 years, inflicting huge casualties on the rest of the world, is a quite incredible feat.

The purpose of war, and therefor the military, is to gain a favorable political outcome, not to "inflicting huge casualties" and not for any vainglory "incredible feat" reasons.

The handing of the military to lead to a favorable political outcome of the task of the politician. I.e. Hitler. In WW2, Hitler declared war on the world, the military did the best they could given the circumstances.

After the failure of the German military in two world wars the political outcome is that Germany is now about half of what it could have been - geographically, population, wealth, political power and moral standing.

I don't think Germany today would be twice as strong if WW1 and WW2 did not happen. Germany today is the second largest western economy, it was the second largest western economy in 1913. German manufacturing production was 50% of the US's in 1913, it was 40% of the US's in 1987, currently it is 35%.

Germany lost some territories but it's natural since Poland was created in those territories. The territories lost in the west were originally part of France.

It's not interesting that the Allies won, since, well, they should have won in 1939 if they were competent enough. What is interesting is how long it took for them to win.

Yes, the French, the British, the Poles and the Czechs may have headed off trouble if they were more forceful and belligerent. But for their own sake, and the sake of Germany, they were gun shy and reluctant to go to war. They choose political solutions and diplomacy only to fail. Even with 20/20 hindsight could you blame them for erring on the side of peaceful solutions.

No, in September 1939, Germany was at war with Poland, France and Britain. These 3 countries had a population of 125 million, versus Germany's 79 million. They had (in UK's case) very significant colonies (Canada, Australia) adding to their manpower pool. They also surrounded Germany.

If they were compentent, in other words, if the German military wasn't superior to those of the Allies, they would take a very long time to defeat Poland (like 1 year, several months at least), while most of the Wehrmacht is busy in Poland, France and Britain would attack in the West and take out Berlin, ending the war in the first months. Instead, the German army pulverized Poland in a couple of weeks, and pulverized the Western front in 6 weeks. That is an absolutely incredible military feat.

Second? After what? After the combined militaries of the dozens of countries of the United Nations?

It doesn't matter if they run second to a tribe of pigmies or the whole world - they run second; they lost; they had the arse handed to them on a platter.

At this broadest level the Germany military was a sad, abject and total failure. Why you continue with your inane rationale I have no idea.

The Second World War wasn't caused by the German military. It was caused by a bunch of lunatics, the Nazis. The German military did not advocate declaring war on the rest of the world, Hitler decided that. If the military fails to accomplish an almost impossible task, them it's not their fault it's the fault of those who gave the task to the military.

You don't know the difference between the military and the political heads of state.

[Guaporense]

the key differece between its leadership and competitors' is that NAZI leaders were imbeciles.

Proof that they were imbeciles ? One is sufficient

Reichsfuhrer's SS own admissions:

In 1941 the Führer attacked Russia. ... At the time, we did not value the mass of humanity as we value it today: as raw material, as labor. The fact that prisoners died of exhaustion and hunger in tens and hundreds of thousands is by no means regrettable from the standpoint of lost generations but is deplorable now for reasons of lost labor.

Reading their declarations and the propaganda they produced (from the fact that they expected people to believe in that nonsense), it's clear the Nazis were complete lunatics. They were a bunch of self destructive violent gangsters running a superpower, declaring war on everybody, almost as if they were clearly trying to self destruct themselves.

As a result, the great country of Germany, the single most important scientific producer of the first half of the 20th century, was destroyed and the European civilization was set back permanently by the crazy rampage induced by the Nazis. The United States emerged as the center of the new world order. mostly due to the fact it was the only major center of civilization that was untouched by the destruction induced by the Nazis.

[Guaporense]

Guaporense wrote:
It's pretty obvious to anyone who has knowledge of military history the excellence of Prussian/German military.

Gupporense:

The "excellence" of the Prussian Military establishment without doubt stems from three distinct Historical eras, first Frederick the Great and the seven years war and then following the 1789/90 defeats to revolutionary France and the 1806 defeats to Napoleon, we have a resurgence from 1813 - 1815 and Bluchers contribution at Waterloo. Finally we have the victories against Denmark Austria and France whose architect von Moltke (the elder) becomes just as important as the original members of the military gesellschaft.
If you were talking about these eras I would say that you have a point, but WW1 and WW2 were quite simply failures, morally and militarily. The "German" General Staff by the time of the WW2 was a new creation, there was no real Prussian General Staff left, yes the new middle class staff officers had adopted the rites and rituals of the Gross General Stab and it had been shaped by Older hands(von seeckt) but no longer was it a bulwark of Conservatism and confessional Christianity.
This new organisation was a characature of the GGS, without doubt the organisational brilliance coming from lifelong study and involvement intellectually in military affairs educated each officer in the Wehrmacht and the army they trained and commanded may have been tactically superior on every battlefield, but excellence is not just measured in such narrow confines as tactical victory:

If you read Gorlitz The History of the German General Staff and Stones The decline and fall of the German General Staff (Twilight of the Gods) you get a sense of how the institution changes in composition and character, and how this effects the three armed forces branches in the Wehrmacht:

Very interesting, I might try reading that. The strategic parts in WW2 were not handled by the military, it were the Nazis who did "grand strategy". They handed the strategic situation to the generals, who had to deal with the odds as they presented themselves.

[ljadw]

the key differece between its leadership and competitors' is that NAZI leaders were imbeciles.

Proof that they were imbeciles ? One is sufficient

Reichsfuhrer's SS own admissions:

In 1941 the Führer attacked Russia. ... At the time, we did not value the mass of humanity as we value it today: as raw material, as labor. The fact that prisoners died of exhaustion and hunger in tens and hundreds of thousands is by no means regrettable from the standpoint of lost generations but is deplorable now for reasons of lost labor.

Reading their declarations and the propaganda they produced (from the fact that they expected people to believe in that nonsense), it's clear the Nazis were complete lunatics. They were a bunch of self destructive violent gangsters running a superpower, declaring war on everybody, almost as if they were clearly trying to self destruct themselves.

As a result, the great country of Germany, the single most important scientific producer of the first half of the 20th century, was destroyed and the European civilization was set back permanently by the crazy rampage induced by the Nazis. The United States emerged as the center of the new world order. mostly due to the fact it was the only major center of civilization that was untouched by the destruction induced by the Nazis.

The admissions of Himmler do no prove that they were imbeciles, but that they were criminals,neither does the fact that they lost the war .

[RichTO90]

Do you need strawman spelled out for you? Go peddle your crocodile tears elsewhere. :roll:

As opposed say ... to Soviets? The Nazi Germany's problem was not it was led by criminals, the key differece between its leadership and competitors' is that NAZI leaders were imbeciles.

Yes, I suppose you do need it spelled out. :roll:

Fallacy: Straw Man

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. (Nizkor Project)

[Graeme Sydney]

WW2 continued to a ridiculous point because of the Nazis not because of the military.

The military were Nazi's and the Nazi's were military. Hitler was the commander in chief and in their silence and the oath of obedience to Hitler the military were one and the same. And in agreement and in action they proved to be one sad, tragic, abject military disaster that lead Germany to a catastrophic fail.

If you want to make a distinction you should refine and define your statement. At the moment the statement is a nonsense and it has lead you to false conclusions.

[Guaporense]

I understood by the German military the professional generals/officers. Of course, Hitler was the commander in chief, micromanaged the war directly and put his nose into the military. A politician/dictator who was playing general.

Obama is the commander in Chief of the US's armed forces today, hence, do you regard his decisions as decisions of the US military and that the democratic party and the US military are one and the same?

I don't think it's hard to understand the meaning of my words. Saying that the German military is a failure because it wasn't able to defeat the rest of the world is just a very ignorant statement.

Which country in the world 1942-45 wasn't at war with Germany? Whole South America, whole North America, all the rest of Europe was either at war with Germany or under German occupation with a couple of neutrals (even Italy and Hungary were at war and under German occupation at some point), Africa was all colonial land of Germany's enemies as most of Asia, India was part of an Empire at war with Germany and China was at war with Japan, Germany's only ally up to the end of the war.

In fact, one can say that Germany was very close in actually defeating the world, if they managed to capture Moscow in Taifun, the Eastern front would probably collapse, due to loss of the central remaining logistical/transportation node plus the moral loss of the capital and Stalin plus much of the Commie party. Without the Eastern Front to worry about, the United Nations would need to try to make an amphibious invasion of the whole of Nazi controlled continental Europe, in fact, it would be easier to Germany to invade the UK than an allied landing on Europe. Also, the resources released from the Eastern front, plus oil means that Germany could easily multiply the size of the Luftwaffe so the Allies wouldn't be able to easily do significant damage with strategic bombing as they did, in fact, most probably they would just give up and stay in a situation of cold war with the Nazis.

[Graeme Sydney]

For truth in advertising you should tag yourself Mr Red Herring.

If you can not or do not appreciate the difference between the German Military and the American Military of the first half of the 20th century there is not much point in continuing the discussion.

I don't think it's hard to understand the meaning of my words. Saying that the German military is a failure because it wasn't able to defeat the rest of the world is just a very ignorant statement.

I don't think you read. I have never made that statement or inference. In this and other threads I have consistently said that Germany failed at the Geo-political and strategic level. At the operational and tactical level they were an A team, if not The A Team.

The German Military's failure was that it allowed itself to get into wars where it effectively maligned itself with the whole world (as you so aptly describe).

[Cult Icon]

I have never encountered much professional/tactical period or post-war writings from the Germans that adequately resolved the issue of fighting advanced, doctrinally mature mechanized armies (US, UK) circa 1944 and the late war RKKA set-piece offensives of Bagration or Vistula-Oder offensive or against soviet mech. defense. Resolving these problems would then return a high level of tactical superiority back to their forces and allow them to launch offensives against late war forces.

These would have to be in the highly speculative/theoretical realm as the Wehrmacht was 'too poor' to launch meaningful attacks at that time or experiment extensively with new models. It would possibly involve new technologies and not just be new techniques/organization.

Even in the General's memoirs/interviews they do not address this interesting question about a theoretical new doctrine and oob.

In 1944 I have not found much in the way of great performance- it looks like the most successful defense done by a single German division was in Rumania, Spring 1944 by Panzergrenadier Division 'GD'- which was an outlier, and hardly a normal division. Offensively? Nothing of note that can compare to the capabilities of 1940-1942.

[Michate]

I have never encountered much professional/tactical period or post-war writings from the Germans that adequately resolved the issue of fighting advanced, doctrinally mature mechanized armies (US, UK) circa 1944 and the late war RKKA set-piece offensives of Bagration or Vistula-Oder offensive or against soviet mech. defense. Resolving these problems would then return a high level of tactical superiority back to their forces and allow them to launch offensives against late war forces.

For a theoretical treatment of a defensive battle in the West, try to get FMS B 789 "The defensive battle" by Oberst a.D. Kurt Brandstaedter, based on his experiences as COS of German 19t Army in 1944/45.

The "closest" in reality (though still only modestly successful) may have been the German defense against the American Roer offensive, starting 16 November 1944 between Geilenkirchen and Eschweiler, Model and von Manteuffel (later replaced by von Zangen, as he has to prepare the Ardennes offensive) actually copying some things the Soviets did at Kursk, like "digging in" Tiger tanks. OTOH, a replay of some things the Germans did in 1917, most notably the "shuffling" of divisions and the establishment of a "large battle MLR", while keeping the "normal" MLR as an outpost line. In addition, building strong corps artillery groups (reinforced by Flak) under direct Arko control and centralized fire direction of all heavy weapons in a division by the artillery commander. Though repeating some of the usual mistakes as well, notably wastage of armored reserves in futile attempts to restore the initial lines.

For the East, "Taktik im Rußlandfeldzug" by Eike Middeldorf (author belonged to the German army general staff's training department).

Actual battles to study the so-called "Highway battles" in 1943/44 in the region of Orsha, battles in the Beskides in autumn 1944 (again directed by Heinrici) and defense of the Courland bridge head.
Actually, the defensive scheem laid out by Heinrici at the Oder was pretty innovative (in the sense of breaking with former practices) as well, with much larger depth of the defensive schemes. It was just that the defensive forces were very poor ragtag formations.

[doogal]

Cult Icon wroteI have never encountered much professional/tactical period or post-war writings from the Germans that adequately resolved the issue of fighting advanced, doctrinally mature mechanized armies

I believe there are good reason for this:

The studies and examples michate offers are few due to the fact that no internal national body for assessing the performance of the Heer existed post 1945 for nearly ten years, in losing the German military did not exist for an interregnum which lasted until the fifties, there were only Allied studies directed at understanding elements of German operations in Russia and other parts of the world.
I also think this can be attributed more to the strategic position that the Bundeswehr ended up in the fifties and how they had to plan as part of a Nato /American led opposition to combat a post War Soviet mechanized invasion.

[Alixanther]

Are you really that amazed - Germany broke all the rules (even their own rule of 'never a two front war') in both wars and gambled.

In both wars they started the war (WW2 definite, WW1 argued, but mostly agreed 'primarily responsible', and most certainly didn't back down when they should have).

In both wars they had a strategic military advantage which they relied on (in fact gave them over confidence). In WW1 it was a large professional army, internal lines and faster mobilization.In WW2 they 'stole the march' (gained strategic surprise) by rearming first and gaining and exploiting the strategic initiative.

In both wars they relied primarily on military superiority and on strategic surprise to gain a King Hit knockout win, to the point it is the only way they would win - all or nothing.

In both wars they were vulnerable to blockade of essential war materials and at great disadvantage in a war of attrition.

In both wars they forfeited the Moral High Ground and made unnecessary enemies of potential friends or neutrals.

Are you really that amazed?

I don't think you're right on several points here.

They did not rearm first - it's a stupidity told over and over again. Both UK, France and Soviet Union had armies comparable to the Wehrmacht - in the case of the SU their army was several times bigger in war materiel. Not to mention that Germany was the last state in WW2 to align their production to war status.

They did not started the war - nor in WW1, nor in WW2. Austro-Hungary might be considered the political centre of decision for a European war, although without the Russian mobilisation there would have been no war whatsoever.
After the Russian mobilisation followed the German mobilisation, then French. After the French mobilisation, German army contemplated an early attack on French to knock them out of the war - not because of a required "surprise" but on the ground of avoiding fighting on two fronts. As a matter of fact, Wilhelm's Reich had no quarrels with the French but they believed the French Army would jump in their back the moment they attack the Russians. So it was a "French first, Russians second" policy. It worked pants, agreed, but that's it.

In WW2, the German-Polish war had no prospection of becoming a world war until French and British declared war on Germany. Nobody in Germany - Hitler included - would have believed they were being declared war upon because of the Corridor. The "now what?" expression sums up pretty well German idea about a second world war.
Second, without Hitler successful invasion of France, Mussolini would not have declared war on Britain. That also means no world war. Without Germany and Italy fighting Britain there's no suicidal Japanese campaign in the Pacific, trying to accomplish nothing. Without Barbarossa, there's no effectiveness of U.S. economic blockade of Japan, therefore no Pearl Harbor. I think you get it...

In both wars they HAD the moral high ground but they were outwitted in propaganda. Germans were pictured in British and French cartoons in WW1 as bloodthirsty hotentots. There were equally demonized in WW2 (before any news about the concentration camps, which only surfaced as a moral ground AFTER the end of the war), while whitewashing Stalin's regime, although it was Stalin's regime in the first place which permitted all this. Without the Ribentropp-Molotov pact, there's no "carte blanche" for Hitler to commit all Germany's force on the West. Therefore no decisive superiority. Not to mention the various supplies they received from Soviet Union and U.S. through trade. What moral high ground? Everything Germany did on war terms was already done by all other Major Powers, there's no doubt about it.

Your white-washing policy will not help : in 1914,Germany was THE (the only) responsible for the outbreak of the war :since more than 10 years,it was searching desperatedly for a pretext to start WWI .

In 1939,Germany invaded Poland,notwithstanding the warnings from Britain and France that this would result in a declaration of war .

They had no high moral grounds: the ruins ofLeuven,Aarschot,Dinant are the proofs,and in WWII,Europe was sowed with proofs of Germany's moral high grounds : maybe a visit to Oswieckim is necessary ?

I'm not whitewashing anything. I already presented my arguments. If you find my arguments weak or untrue, then challenge them. But please, leave this musing tone aside, because you've been also proven wrong several times.

You might have learnt a different history, because unless Austro-Hungary became involved in a war in Balkans, there's no hints whatsoever that Wilhelm wanted war with France. If you remember, at that time, Alsace and Lorraine (the long-disputed border provinces) were on the German side. On the contrary, it was France's wish to regain these provinces back. There were no more German-speaking provinces in the West at that time. What reason would Wilhelm hold to wage war against France?

I won't argue that Wilhelm wanted some sort of war. It's quite plausible. However, he did not planned a "world war" neither he wanted a continental blockade which put his country under famine and unrest.

If I might speculate, the war envisioned by Wilhelm the 2nd was in the East, not in the West.

Wilhelm also wanted to consolidate his overseas empire so he built several battleships and the Brits felt threatened. Similar to France' geopolitical situation, it was Britain which might benefited from a conflict, not Germany. Germany was closing distance as an industrial power and Britain needed no competition. Germany had a great deal of Zeppelins and their projected power was received strenuously by the Brits, because - as the war showed - they were the only means of imposing hardships on Great Britain the same way the British battleships were doing on Germany by maintaining their commercial blockade.

Think of the Zeppelins as aircraft carrier equivalents of WW1.

I don't know of any plans of Wilhelm's Reich which would lead to a full-scale world war. If such plans ever existed, please do show them to us. The only country in the world which could have benefited from a world war at that time was U.S. Therefore, if such plans were to be found, they're probably of U.S. origin. However, I don't think you can find one. That, however, shouldn't keep you up from looking for it, if you're so keen on doing so.

In 1939, Germany AND Soviet Union invaded Poland. There's no reason whatsoever for the Western Powers, if they're on such high moral ground horses, to declare war on Germany but refrain to do the same with SU.
I'll repeat, so you'll finally get it: from the 2 invaders of Poland, SU was the bigger, stronger predator. Not Germany. Germany was strongly supported by SU in its plans, because Stalin did not believe Wehrmacht to be able to put a strong enough show against France + Britain. He officially (and also unofficially) made repeated statements that Germany won't stay alone against the West and SU will come to help. Now, mark my words: if by any chance Britain and France were to gain ground against Germany, SU was going to marshal their armies towards Germany's western border and help the Wehrmacht tilt the balance. Germany was perceived by Stalin as a socialist underdog of Soviet Union, a mere satellite state. At no time in history Stalin feared Hitler more than he feared the Western Powers.

He was furious of Hitler after his attack on SU, but did not fear him.

The "ruins" you call as proof might come back to haunt you, because it was the Western Powers which employed the strategic bombardment doctrine on a large scale against civilians, not the Germans (which nevertheless used this tactic during fights but not as means of quelling the will to fight of a people - which, if you ask me, it's not only criminal but also moronic). As regarding your snide personal attack, I already said and I'll repeat that the concentration camp card was (and still is) a post-war issue: there's no proof, hint or indication whatsoever, at any time during the war, that any Western Power declared war on Germany purpotedly on stopping Hitler's concentration camps from being set up and functioning.

There's probably more to say but I'll leave it here. If you want to pick up the challenge, do it.

[ljadw]

Your white-washing will convince noone :

Germany had no high moral grounds ,not in WWI not in WWII.

The facts are that before WWI,Germany was the only one with offensive plans (the other countries only were defending themselves).Germany forced AH to declare war on Serbia for something Germany was uninterested (Sarajevo),when this did not result in war with Russia,Germany declared war on Russia,and,when this did not result in war with France,Germany declared war on France,using as reason a pack of lies .It was also Germany who started in WWI air and naval attacks on British cities.And,let's not forget the German behaviour in Belgiumwhen it invaded this country .

In WWII : Germany invaded Poland,forcing the SU to follow,and,as Poland did not declare war on the SU,there was no reason for Britain and France to declare war on the SU .As in WWI,Germany started the air attacks on Polish cities,followed by attacks on Dutch and Belgian cities .For the rest,given the historical reality of Auschwitz,Treblinka,Maidanek,of the actions of the Einsatzkommandos, I am astonished that someone is still talking about German high moral grounds .

About the German plans : never heard of the Schlieffen plan ?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Alixanther,

You write, "I don't know of any plans of Wilhelm's Reich which would lead to a full-scale world war." The same can be said of Hitler in 1939, as well.

This is a straw man, as nobody is making such a proposition.

Wilhelmine Germany and Nazi Germany were both amenable to limited, contained and, above all, winnable wars against weaker opponents. However, they found that they could not limit or contain the conflicts they were leading players in unleashing because they threatened the wider balance of power and caused domino effects that landed them both with probably unwinnable world wars.

World wars were the unwanted consequences of more local German actions, not their aims.

Cheers,

Sid.