Germany overrated in this subsection of the forum?

[AHardDaysNight]

Read through this forum and there seems to be a fair few threads stating if Germany was leagues ahead of other countries and if they had a particular weapon etc they'd instantly win.

Now personally, I neither think they were excellent or downright useless in WW2 but aside from Nazi meddling and interference I think the army, airforce and navy (to an extent) did fairly well but not like unbeatable. Does anyone share this opinion?

[maltesefalcon]

Well they did lose the war, so defining them as not unbeatable would be spot on. Personally I feel the Germans did much better in the early years than they should have. Huge errors in Allied planning and inept Allied field commanders created an atmosphere that the Wehrmacht was more powerful than it really was.

[Konig_pilsner]

I think it is the opposite. There are a few posters in this section obsessed with belittling the Germans to the point of making themselves look foolish. This vanguard of all things righteous and moral was needed back in the 90's when you had things like revisionism going on, but today it is pretty embarrassing. They are like the Antifa of AHF, seeing Nazis hiding behind every tree.

Considering after the war many German Generals perpetuated the myth of German superiority on the battlefield and made many of the same claims you will find here, it is understandable why people would ask the same questions. The best part is by asking these questions one is generally pushed to look a bit deeper into the actual history which results in a greater understanding.

KP

[Michael Kenny]

I think it is the opposite. There are a few posters in this section obsessed with belittling the Germans to the point of making themselves look foolish.

Yes that it. Only recently on one of those sycophantic 'Tiger Tank' Facebook pages one admirer posted a pic of a Tiger with the amusing caption ''Hunting Jews' and he was not banned. That is the real world of the 'didn't they do well'ers.

PS
how can you belittle a Military that had it backside handed to it twice in 25 years?

[Konig_pilsner]

I said what I think, and you don't have to agree. I sure as hell am not going to get into a debate on the validity of belittling nations... but this is a history forum where people come to talk about WW2, not watch threads get hijacked by pissing contests and moral crusades.

[MarkN]

Considering after the war many German Generals perpetuated the myth of German superiority on the battlefield and made many of the same claims you will find here, it is understandable why people would ask the same questions.

If the myth has been exposed and debunked, then NO it is not understandable that people are still coming out with the nonsense. Anybody interested in the 'facts' and history as it really was will have already read both sides of the story before coming on AHF and spouting their garbage. Not so?

The best part is by asking these questions one is generally pushed to look a bit deeper into the actual history which results in a greater understanding.

And it's not the "best part" either. It is the complete opposite. There are legions on this forum still spouting the same garbage, believeing the same garbage, even though they have been "pushed to look a bit deeper". Rarely do they obtain "greater understanding", the tend to dig their heels in even deeper.

It seems less to do with ignorance of the subject and more to do with believing / wanting to believe / desperate to convince others that myths are realities. They seem to actually want the Nazis to have won the war.

[ljadw]

. Huge errors in Allied planning and inept Allied field commanders created an atmosphere that the Wehrmacht was more powerful than it really was.

This is not correct : one should never underestimate one's enemies .

[Don71]

Considering after the war many German Generals perpetuated the myth of German superiority on the battlefield and made many of the same claims you will find here, it is understandable why people would ask the same questions. The best part is by asking these questions one is generally pushed to look a bit deeper into the actual history which results in a greater understanding.

There are a tons of books on the market from anglo american militairs and historian, which came and come to the conclusion that the Wehrmacht was superior, on a tactical level, on the battlefield. Thats not only a german conclusion.

[losna]

Read through this forum and there seems to be a fair few threads stating if Germany was leagues ahead of other countries and if they had a particular weapon etc they'd instantly win.

Now personally, I neither think they were excellent or downright useless in WW2 but aside from Nazi meddling and interference I think the army, airforce and navy (to an extent) did fairly well but not like unbeatable. Does anyone share this opinion?

Generally speaking, posters that overrate Germany tend to do this mainly because of incomplete knowledge about logistics.

What makes debate difficult when discussing about the military performance of Nazi Germany is that Germans embarked in two titanic clashes at the same time, not because of army's deliberate choiches but out of political reasons.
This happened along with an inadequate programmation, that led the Army toward constant shortages of almost everything, thus severely degrading its combat capability.
The only thing certain is that Germans were always defeated by brute force.

[Konig_pilsner]

If the myth has been exposed and debunked, then NO it is not understandable that people are still coming out with the nonsense. Anybody interested in the 'facts' and history as it really was will have already read both sides of the story before coming on AHF and spouting their garbage. Not so?

Maybe if you are 40 years old, but if you think kids today are reading Tooze before coming here you are dead wrong. What they have watched is some YouTube and some History Channel. Don't forget there was a time when mainstream historians actually reinforced German superiority and depending on what documentary/book you watch today it is easy to not have all the facts. Asking questions on this forum is NOT spewing garbage, only manipulating history to your own personal bias is, and I have seen that done by both sides on AHF.

And it's not the "best part" either. It is the complete opposite. There are legions on this forum still spouting the same garbage, believeing the same garbage, even though they have been "pushed to look a bit deeper". Rarely do they obtain "greater understanding", the tend to dig their heels in even deeper.

If someone asks, "what if AGC goes straight for Moscow" or "what if the ME 262 came out in 1943", that doesn't make them a Nazi sympathizer. What it does is create a discussion where people make claims and which they then back up with sourced evidence. That leads to a greater understanding of history.

There are a tons of books on the market from anglo american militairs and historian, which came and come to the conclusion that the Wehrmacht was superior, on a tactical level, on the battlefield. Thats not only a german conclusion.

Umm no. The Germans had a very good army at the start of the war, by the end not so much. The Allies had very good armies at the end of the war, at the start not so much. To make any broader comparisons is futile, and in the end destroys threads with meaningless posturing.

[MarkN]

If someone asks, "what if AGC goes straight for Moscow" or "what if the ME 262 came out in 1943", that doesn't make them a Nazi sympathizer. What it does is create a discussion where people make claims and which they then back up with sourced evidence. That leads to a greater understanding of history.

Have you noticed how all of those types of 'questions' are all attempting to win the war for Germany? Have you ever seen "what if the ME262 was deemed a failure and never took to the air". How often do you see questions asking how would the Germans do without their various wunderwaffe? Why is that?

Asking questions on this forum is NOT spewing garbage, only manipulating history to your own personal bias is, and I have seen that done by both sides on AHF.

Asking an initial question may not be garbage. The litter in the thread is not the initial post, it's all the subsequent attempts to defend the indefensible.

Maybe if you are 40 years old, but if you think kids today are reading Tooze before coming here you are dead wrong. What they have watched is some YouTube and some History Channel. Don't forget there was a time when mainstream historians actually reinforced German superiority and depending on what documentary/book you watch today it is easy to not have all the facts.

It is impossible to have all the facts. The garbage spewers are not interested in facts. The number of books etc available is irrelevant when somebody is pushing an agenda.

I've never read Tooze. In fact, considering the mountains of literature out there, I've barely scratched the surface. You don't need to read great volumes of work, you just need to read a handful of documents and apply some common sense to get the picture. And therein lies one of the best ways to find out whether somebody is 'discussing' with a view to "greater understanding" or "pushing an agenda": present a document and ask them to analyse it and say what they think it means and implies. Weissung 21 being an example.

[Michael Kenny]

If someone asks, "what if AGC goes straight for Moscow" or "what if the ME 262 came out in 1943", that doesn't make them a Nazi sympathizer. What it does is create a discussion where people make claims and which they then back up with sourced evidence. That leads to a greater understanding of history.

Those people are not after a history lesson. They are looking for a way to excuse failure. To find out how external factors conspired to rob The Wehrmacht of its 'well-deserved' victory. To re-run the game and this time win it.
This forum is dominated by 'what can I change to make Germany the winner in WW2' delusions and the jarring introduction of the term 'Antifa' indicates darker motives than a desire to learn from History.

[Konig_pilsner]

Have you noticed how all of those types of 'questions' are all attempting to win the war for Germany? Have you ever seen "what if the ME262 was deemed a failure and never took to the air". How often do you see questions asking how would the Germans do without their various wunderwaffe? Why is that?

This will be my last post since I don't have the time or interest.

Where you see sinister motives, I see historical debate first created by the survivors of the war, later discussed by historians and now by us on forums. For christ sakes academics have written their thesis's on the subject of how the Germans could have won WW2, good thing some around here weren't grading them.

Those people are not after a history lesson. They are looking for a way to excuse failure. To find out how external factors conspired to rob The Wehrmacht of its 'well-deserved' victory. To re-run the game and this time win it.

How arrogant to think that you know the truth behind everyones motives. Incredible.

This forum is dominated by 'what can I change to make Germany the winner in WW2' delusions and the jarring introduction of the term 'Antifa' indicates darker motives than a desire to learn from History.

When you make accusations about peoples motives based on your subjective understanding of their intent, you make a fool of yourself. Now that 99% of the Revisionists/Deniers/Sympathyzers have been driven off this sight, those that attacked them have little to do so they changed the criteria of what is deemed offensive. Now it isn't about the content, it is about what people like Kenny might deem to be the hidden meanings behind the content. So ridiculous. You don't like being compared to Antifa? Then don't act like them.

Anyways I am out, gotta go back to dreaming about what if Adolf had a dozen death stars.

[Dark Age]

If someone asks, "what if AGC goes straight for Moscow" or "what if the ME 262 came out in 1943", that doesn't make them a Nazi sympathizer. What it does is create a discussion where people make claims and which they then back up with sourced evidence. That leads to a greater understanding of history.

Have you noticed how all of those types of 'questions' are all attempting to win the war for Germany? Have you ever seen "what if the ME262 was deemed a failure and never took to the air". How often do you see questions asking how would the Germans do without their various wunderwaffe? Why is that?

There are three big obvious reasons for this (just off the top of my head):

1: KING OF THE WORLD/CONQUERORS FANTASY
2: RADICAL ALTERNATE HISTORY FANTASY
3: FIGHT CLUB MENTALITY/SPORTING MENTALITY

1: KING OF THE WORLD/CONQUERORS FANTASY

Many men fantasize about conquering the world for fun (me included). Many men who like to study history furthermore fantasize about conquering the world as famous historical figures of the past: Alexander the Great, Caesar, Augustus, Genghis Khan, Napoleon etc. Here in this fantasy, the state vessel for such conquest is of secondary consideration: Ancient Macedonia, Roman Republic, Roman Empire, Mongol Khanate, French Empire; it matters little. What matters is the man fantasizing about using these states, their citizens and armies, as tools in his imagination to impose his will and become King of the World.

In World War Two, Nazi Germany is the most ideal nation (vessel) for this fantasy. Hitler is the most ideal ruler for this fantasy. As stated, the immoral racial politics of Nazi Germany and Hitler are of little consideration for the fantasy. What matters is Hitler was the absolute ruler of a militarized, powerful state bent on World Conquest. What matters is Germany was the only country that was both attempting to and nearly capable of destroying the Status Quo (Me against the World Fantasy).

No one wants to be an imaginary ruler of the USA or United Kingdom in his fantasy! Why would they? Both states have too many checks and balances, too much criticism and opposition to politicians (who would be envious of Obama’s former position or Trump’s current position even today). The United Kingdom didn’t have the strength to even conquer any of its European neighbors; it could only conquer savage primitive tribes in remote regions of the world and control the seas to a degree. The USA had the strength for conquest but no will to use it. Now if you are talking about a hypothetical USA that wants to conquer Mexico, Central America, and annex Canada in order to build a North American Empire then we are talking about an awesome King of the World fantasy!

In contrast, Hitler was almost treated as a cult God (Godhood Fantasy). When he said “jump”, the Germans said “how high.” Furthermore, the state he controlled was a Great Power which nearly had the ability to conquer all of Europe and transform into a Superpower. Neither Japan nor Italy had such ability which is why there are far fewer What If scenarios on these two countries. No one wants to be a Japanese ruler or Italian dictator in his fantasy as these countries were junior partners to Germany and they would always lose against the USA/UK. These vessels were inferior.

This King of the World fantasy causing more What Ifs that benefit the Germans is therefore self-evident. It is also why there are more What Ifs regarding Napoleon being victorious by not invading Spain in 1808 and Russia in 1812 or winning battles (even as late as Waterloo in 1815) than there are What Ifs of the Coalition winning sooner. The Coalition was just defending the Status Quo and are totally boring. How can a man be King of the World with all these countries sharing power!

The only country, other than Germany, that might appeal to this King of the World Fantasy is perhaps the Soviet Union. This has issues however due to Communism, Stalin killing his own people, and Russia’s pathetic performance history of invading other countries, but I digress.

SOLUTIONS TO NUMBER 1

Show that the vessel (in this case Germany) would have lost anyway. The only shots Germany had to win World War 2 was 1) to both abandon its alliance with Japan and abandon its racial policies and then persuade the Soviet Union to enter the War on the Axis side or 2) to, at the very least, keep the USA out of the War in Europe. Both are improbable, especially the former.

You can also prove that no man rules alone and Hitler’s power was more tenuous than it appears superficially.

2: RADICAL ALTERNATE HISTORY FANTASY

People are clearly more fascinated by more extreme versions of alternate history. No one really cares to talk about the Allies in World War Two winning 6 months sooner or 6 months later! Why? Cause history would barely be changed. What’s the fun of talking about alternate history when its history we pretty much have already seen and already know!

Germany on the other hand was fighting the Status Quo so a victory changes things dramatically. A Cold War between the USA and Germany would likely bring much different ends than the actual Cold War between USA and the USSR. Also, Germany, unlike Japan and Italy, had the only shot at a victory which could alter history dramatically. Therefore, there are less What Ifs about the other Axis powers.

SOULTIONS TO NUMBER 2

Again, prove that if Germany fought the war an infinite number of times, it would have lost an infinite number of times. Defeat must not be a result of randomness but due to inherent German inferiority. If Germany didn’t invade the USSR in 1941 and instead reinforced Rommel and attacked the Middle East, Turkey would have been uncooperative, Stalin would have occupied Iran blocking the German armies from India, Axis armies would face difficult logistic problems, oil wasn't as abundant in Middle East in 1941 as it is today, USA would likely have entered the war anyway without a German DOW, the Soviet Union would have attacked Germany anyway etc etc.

If Germany invades the Soviet Union in 1941, then explain that, at best, the Germans can take Moscow or the Ukraine but NOT BOTH. An early advance on Moscow would risk flank attacks on Army Group Center, cruel German racial policies of extermination ensured continued resistance even if Moscow fell hypothetically etc etc.

3: FIGHT CLUB/SPORTING MENTALITY

People are sports minded and like to think in terms of 1 vs 1, man to man, or an 11-man team vs an 11-man team (American Football). This inflexible, sheltered thought has little basis in reality. Wars and military campaigns in reality are something like 30 vs 10, 25 vs 9, 50 vs 37, 1000 vs 21 etc. etc.

Nonetheless people still try to make it sporty. Germany vs Soviet Union 1 vs 1 , Japan vs UK, 1 vs 1, Japan vs USA 1 vs 1, Germany and Italy vs UK and USSR 2 vs 2.

SOLUTIONS TO NUMBER 3

Explain life is rarely 1 vs 1 with a Referee. Also explain that putting yourself in stupid situations where you are significantly outnumbered (like Germany in both World Wars) is a failure and, is itself, a sign of inferiority. This is no different than leaving only 5000 troops to protect your flank and the enemy attacks it with 20,000 troops and destroys it and surrounds your army. One must be intelligent when attacking the Status Quo.


I’m sure there are other reasons but those are main ones I can think of. This forum usually does an ok job of checking fantasy with reality. It will be a constant battle though as new people are introduced to history.

[jesk]

You can also prove that no man rules alone and Hitler’s power was more tenuous than it appears superficially.

Comrades helped him in this. There are different opinions on the mechanisms of the Second World War. Hitler outplayed intellectually. He worked in an area over which many could only laugh ...