Were nazi-germans really superhumans ?

Discussions on the propaganda, architecture and culture in the Third Reich.
Post Reply
gebhk
Member
Posts: 2623
Joined: 25 Feb 2013, 21:23

Re: Were nazi-germans really superhumans ?

#76

Post by gebhk » 18 Mar 2021, 20:27

If we believe what is most plausible, we specifically exclude whatever is implausible.
Yep, the problem is that what we consider plausible is a matter of personal opinion. Some people think it plausible that the world is flat and discount all evidence to the contrary as implausible. Or that C-19 is a vast conspiracy orchestrated by lizard men.
However, to believe that more training is not likely to be advantageous is irrational.
It would seem so intuitively and yet we know that more training is not necessarily advantageous, sometimes quite the opposite. Training is only beneficial if the right people are trained, in the right things and in the right way. And even if those three are present there is a limit beyond which the law of diminishing returns is as true here as in everything else.

Be that as it may, I have not said that the Germans marginally longer service period vs the Poles and perhaps larger gap vis a vis the French (don't know) wasn't advantageous so i don't feel the need to defend that position. What I do find implausible is that it was the critical factor to German victories in the early part of the war that you make it out to be, compared to the very real advantages of numerical superiority, better communications, massive aerial superiority and the armoured divisions -0 a crushing material superiority in every category compared to the Poles. There was no such advantage in length of service compared to the Soviets, who also had a 2-year conscript service since the beginning of conscription in 1918 backed up by exactly the same sort of pre-military training and indoctrination (after all where did the Nazi's get those ideas from?)- lengthened to 3 years in 1939, yet the Soviets did not do any better in the early part of the war.

It could be quite reasonably argued that the extended conscript service was not an independent factor, but simply the inevitable consequence of the modern battlefield becoming rapidly more complex as a result of the runaway technological advances being made in the 1920s-30s. The Germans were not the only ones to increase conscript service in the late 1930s. This was certainly the case in Poland where it had become apparent that the existing system (18+4 months) was inadequately long to encompass all the new techniques that were being brought to bear and this had very little to do with what was going on in Germany as far as i can make out.
Last edited by gebhk on 18 Mar 2021, 20:59, edited 2 times in total.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6349
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Were nazi-germans really superhumans ?

#77

Post by Richard Anderson » 18 Mar 2021, 20:36

gebhk wrote:
18 Mar 2021, 20:27
It would seem so intuitively and yet we know that more training is not necessarily advantageous, sometimes quite the opposite. Training is only beneficial if the right people are trained, in the right things and in the right way. And even if those three are present there is a limit beyond which the law of diminishing returns is as true here as in everything else.
Quite.

You can, for instance, compare the training time of the 106th Infantry Division prior to its commitment in the Bulge on 11 December 1944. Seventeen months of organization and training, followed by two months transit to combat.

Now, look at its opponent, 18. VGD. In existence organizing and training for three and a half months prior to its entry into combat.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell


gebhk
Member
Posts: 2623
Joined: 25 Feb 2013, 21:23

Re: Were nazi-germans really superhumans ?

#78

Post by gebhk » 18 Mar 2021, 20:38

Where have they kept you ?
OK, but some specifics on the Otto Lilienthal aeroplane would be welcome as I can find nothing online or in my library. :)

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Were nazi-germans really superhumans ?

#79

Post by Sid Guttridge » 18 Mar 2021, 20:58

Hi gebhk,

That is to assume that there is no difference between what someone might consider plausible and what actually is. I am sure that you are not putting flat earth theory on a par with orb earth theory just because some people happen to think it equally plausible.

There is such a phenomenon as over training. It was certainly thought to be a potential problem for British divisions preparing to invade the continent for four years from 1940 to 1944.

I am not suggesting that longer conscription was the critical factor to German victories. Indeed, I posted above, "I would suggest that one important factor was that the German Welle I divisions were consistently better than their opponents at that time."

However, I am suggesting that the long and consistent HJ>RAD>military service sequence was a significant factor in the performance of German Welle I divisions compared to their opponents over 1939-41. They were under discipline and being physically conditioned for significantly longer than their opponents. The use of drugs also seems to have further enhanced their endurance. It is also arguable that German infantry tactics may have been among the best, given that they were directly descended from the successful stosstruppe tactics of 1917-1918. I believe that Rommel literally wrote the book on the subject: Infantry Attacks.

Cheers,

Sid.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 2623
Joined: 25 Feb 2013, 21:23

Re: Were nazi-germans really superhumans ?

#80

Post by gebhk » 18 Mar 2021, 22:32

That is to assume that there is no difference between what someone might consider plausible and what actually is
By its very definition plausibility is subjective and everyone thinks that what they think is plausible is, while the opposite is not. I am not putting flat earth theory on a par with orb earth theory because I find it implausible. However some people happen to think it plausible and that makes it plausible to them. We can attempt to settle the debate by various experiments and I would suggest that the preponderance of evidence is in favour of the global theory. Clearly not everyone agrees.

However, the first big problem with your theory is that there is no reliable evidence to support your fundamental assumption that German Welle 1 Divisions were consistently better than their opponents at that time. Only a statistically significant sample of one on one combats between German and Allied divisions absent strategic and operational situation would answer that question and there is no such sample. And many Poles, for example, would be happy to point out that on the rare occasions when Polish and German troops met on a roughly equal footing, the Germans routinely got a good thrashing in 1939.

And even if we could support that assumption (and agree what 'better' actually means) how do you provide evidence that an extra 2-6 months of training of conscripts makes a significant contribution to that betterness? I'm afraid 'it must be so because that is rational' will not do.

Bestest
K

gebhk
Member
Posts: 2623
Joined: 25 Feb 2013, 21:23

Re: Were nazi-germans really superhumans ?

#81

Post by gebhk » 18 Mar 2021, 22:49

They were under discipline and being physically conditioned for significantly longer than their opponents.
Out of curiosity, do you have a 'syllabus' for a German infantry conscript service cycle?
Last edited by gebhk on 19 Mar 2021, 15:48, edited 1 time in total.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Were nazi-germans really superhumans ?

#82

Post by Sid Guttridge » 19 Mar 2021, 00:02

Hi gebhk,

You post, "By its very definition plausibility is subjective and everyone thinks that what they think is plausible is, while the opposite is not." The phraseology is a bit confusing. Are you saying that Implausibility is objective? That nobody can contend on the basis of evidence that something is more or less plausible?

"However, the first big problem with your theory is that there is no reliable evidence to support your fundamental assumption that German Welle 1 Divisions were consistently better than their opponents at that time." Well, they were the remarkably fast moving boots on the ground of a force that over ran most of western and central Europe with relatively light loss to themselves.

You post, "Only a statistically significant sample of one on one combats between German and Allied divisions absent strategic and operational situation would answer that question and there is no such sample." and then go on to suggest there are a few applicable such examples, "And many Poles, for example, would be happy to point out that on the rare occasions when Polish and German troops met on a roughly equal footing, the Germans routinely got a good thrashing in 1939."

You ask, "How do you provide evidence that an extra 2-6 months of training of conscripts makes a significant contribution to that betterness?" Well, if one doesn't believe that practice is necessarily improving, one has to provide a cut off point where it is no longer so. I think we are agreed that some training is better than none and at least initially, the more the better, but how much are you proposing is optimal? Was 18 months ideal for Polish troops? Had they no more that could be learnt? Or perhaps they had already stopped improving at 12 months? I think it entirely possible that the Law of Diminishing returns applies, but does all improvement just stop dead at 18 (or whatever) months training?

Cheers,

Sid.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6349
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Were nazi-germans really superhumans ?

#83

Post by Richard Anderson » 19 Mar 2021, 00:52

Sid Guttridge wrote:
19 Mar 2021, 00:02
Well, they were the remarkably fast moving boots on the ground of a force that over ran most of western and central Europe with relatively light loss to themselves.
The problem with that may be the simple lack of evidence. Is 240 KIA and WIA to Inf-Regt 7., a 1.Welle regiment, in the French Campaign, relatively light losses? Unfortunately, figures for losses for other units, whatever the Welle, in France are difficult because so much of the records for that period were destroyed by perfidious Albion. Certainly the total French Campaign losses were not insignificant, especially given how few divisions were actively engaged. A total of 156,556 casualties is not insignificant.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4785
Joined: 15 Jun 2004, 16:19
Location: Finland

Re: Were nazi-germans really superhumans ?

#84

Post by Topspeed » 19 Mar 2021, 06:52

gebhk wrote:
18 Mar 2021, 20:38
Where have they kept you ?
OK, but some specifics on the Otto Lilienthal aeroplane would be welcome as I can find nothing online or in my library. :)

There would not have been any bicycle repairmen that we know of had there not been mr. Otto Lilienthal.

Like I said adding an engine and different controls does not make the Lilienthal's flying machine any less important.

Germany was first and USA was second.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Were nazi-germans really superhumans ?

#85

Post by Sid Guttridge » 19 Mar 2021, 09:11

Hi Richard Anderson,

I did not say that a total of 156,556 casualties was insignificant. I posted, ".....relatively light loss to themselves".

Casualties are the currency that armies use to gain advantage. The advantages gained to Germany by its casualties in Poland, France and elsewhere in Western Europe were out of all proportion to the price paid. I say "relatively" light because they certainly were compared with their opponents, Germany's own in its last war and in the second half of the current one.

This was all achieved with just three or four years worth of 2-year conscripts forming the cutting edge and essential boots on the ground of the Army. Poland and France, with their inter-war conscription, might be described as "nations in arms". Because of the lingering impact of the Versailles restrictions, Germany in 1939-40 could probably not yet be, whatever Hitler's aspirations.

Cheers,

Sid.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 2623
Joined: 25 Feb 2013, 21:23

Re: Were nazi-germans really superhumans ?

#86

Post by gebhk » 19 Mar 2021, 09:54

So with respect, he did not build an aeroplane and therefore could not have been the first to build an aeroplane. Adding an engine and controls does not make Lillienthal's gliders less important (and the Wrights acknowledged this very generously) but it DID make the Wrights' machine an aeroplane rather than a glider and therefore a contender for first place in the race to build a functional aeroplane. If you wish to contest the American's claim to primacy on behalf of Germany, then Karl Jatho's or even Gustave Whitehead's are claims you could more realistically get behind.

The argument that the Wright's airplane could not have existed without Lillienthal, while true, does not wash. Equally Lillienthal could not have developed his glider without Caley. Just because the steam engine could not have been invented if Ugh hadn't discovered fire, it does not make Ugh the inventor of steam power!

Incidentally, to be fair, the Wright brothers were not just bicycle repairmen; they built a printing press, ran a printing shop and published a newspaper before turning to bicycle repair and eventually manufacturing their own brand of bicycles until they eventually turned all their attention to building airframes and engines. :thumbsup:
Last edited by gebhk on 19 Mar 2021, 15:28, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4785
Joined: 15 Jun 2004, 16:19
Location: Finland

Re: Were nazi-germans really superhumans ?

#87

Post by Topspeed » 19 Mar 2021, 10:26

gebhk wrote:
19 Mar 2021, 09:54
So with respect, he did not build an aeroplane and therefore could not have been the first to build an aeroplane. Adding an engine and controls does not make Lillienthal's gliders less important (and the Wrights acknowledged this very generously) but it DID make their machine an aeroplane rather than a glider and therefore a contender for first place in the race to build a functional aeroplane. If you wish to contest the American's claim to primacy on behalf of Germany, then Karl Jatho's or even Gustave Whitehead's are claims you could realistically get behind.

The argument that the Wright's airplane could not have existed without Lillienthal, while true, does not wash. Equally Lillienthal could not have developed his glider without Caley. Just because the steam engine could not have been invented if Ugh hadn't discovered fire, it does not make Ugh the inventor of steam power!

Incidentally, to be fair, the Wright brothers were not just bicycle repairmen; they built a printing press, ran a printing shop and published a newspaper before turning to bicycle repair and eventually manufacturing their own brand of bicycles until they eventually turned all their attention to building airframes and engines. :thumbsup:

What I have always found funny is the fact that they (Wright bros) left the wheels out of their contraption.

You might be surprised but Felix du Temple de la Croix flew steam powered aeroplane in 1859.

Anyway Otto Lilienthal was the first to fly controlled flights (hundreds of them) before anyone else.

https://simanaitissays.com/2014/12/30/t ... 1898-1908/
Attachments
dutemple-flying-machine.jpg
dutemple-flying-machine.jpg (24.24 KiB) Viewed 423 times

gebhk
Member
Posts: 2623
Joined: 25 Feb 2013, 21:23

Re: Were nazi-germans really superhumans ?

#88

Post by gebhk » 19 Mar 2021, 11:12

Are you saying that Implausibility is objective?
No, I am saying that plausibility and implausibility are by definition subjective.
That nobody can contend on the basis of evidence that something is more or less plausible?
One can contend what one likes (with or without evidence), that does not make the premise plausible until the other party believes in it. A plausible explanation is one that SEEMS (my emphasis) reasonable or probable according to the Oxford Languages website. As an aside, it is interesting that the definition of a plausible person is: skilled at producing persuasive arguments, especially ones intended to deceive. :D
Well, they were the remarkably fast moving boots on the ground
Can you support this statement with reliable evidence - by that I mean is there evidence that German infantrymen, equally laden could routinely march faster/further than their Polish or French counterparts? Interestingly, the opinion of Polish military observers was that the opposite was the case with respect to the Polish infantryman, however this did not prove to be much of an advantage because the Germans could transport their troops mechanically much more quickly when needed. Compared to the polish infantryman on the march during the 1939 campaign, the German infantryman was much less laden (his backpack was carried by a truck - a function of the higher level of mechanisation), he could march by day with confidence that he would not be attacked from the air (a function of German aerial dominance) and was much more likely to be fresh (a function of German numerical superiority).
remarkably fast moving boots on the ground of a force that over ran most of western and central Europe with relatively light loss to themselves.
This is a classic 'man on motorcycle in red shirt beats a man on a bicycle in a white shirt proving a red shirt is important to winning a mechanical race ' argument. Which is where we come back to plausibility. I personally find it far more plausible that the reasons the German force was able to overrun much of Europe quickly was predominantly their novel uses of artillery, mechanised forces, air supremacy and numerical superiority and not the supposed (but unsupported by valid evidence) 'fastness' of the boots on the ground.
I think it entirely possible that the Law of Diminishing returns applies, but does all improvement just stop dead at 18 (or whatever) months training?
I don't know. The point is that neither do you and it is you that is claiming the extra few months of training were a great advantage to the Germans.
and then go on to suggest there are a few applicable such examples
I do not. None of these relate to combats of division size with comparable artillery resources etc. I just bring these as an example that it is easy to bring to the table unprovable/undisprovable opinion of little relevance in support of a thesis. Unfortunately they don't really move the discussion on usefully.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 2623
Joined: 25 Feb 2013, 21:23

Re: Were nazi-germans really superhumans ?

#89

Post by gebhk » 19 Mar 2021, 12:35

Anyway Otto Lilienthal was the first to fly controlled flights (hundreds of them) before anyone else.
With respect so what? He did not make them in an airplane and no one is claiming the Wright brothers were the first to make a flight, controlled or otherwise, the claim is that they were the first to fly a functional airplane. A modern hangglider is no more flying an airplane than was Lilienthal even though that modern hang glider is substantially better controlled. Ironically it was the inadequacy of flight control in the Lilienthal gliders that the Wright brothers saw as the main obstacle to building a functional airplane and only their solution to this problem made their airplane possible.
You might be surprised but Felix du Temple de la Croix flew steam powered aeroplane in 1859.
I was surprised, because I thought the date was 1857. However this was not a manned machine, it was what would nowadays be termed a 'model airplane' and there were a number of others before the Wrights, including the competing claim for primacy by the machine of John Stringfellow of 1848. I was even more surprised that you did not quote the Monoplane built by the du Temple brothers in 1874, recognised as the first powered flight albeit not unassisted (it had to be run down a slope before taking off before, to quote Buzz Lightfoot, 'falling with style' to the ground).
Last edited by gebhk on 19 Mar 2021, 15:52, edited 1 time in total.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Were nazi-germans really superhumans ?

#90

Post by Sid Guttridge » 19 Mar 2021, 12:57

Hi gebhk,

Your point would seem to be that the physical conditioning and discipline provided by pre-military HJ and RAD service and a longer military training period are not advantageous (presumably in the latter case after a certain point you are not able to specify).

This seems to me inherently implausible, based on objective considerations. It certainly was to the French, who instead followed the Germans in introducing similar measures. (It should also be pointed out that under the Communist youth movement, so did Poland ultimately adopt a similar pre-military model.)

I would say it is less, "man on motorcycle in red shirt beats a man on a bicycle in a white shirt proving a red shirt is important to winning a mechanical race" than "man on foot with several years training beats other men on foot who haven't had the same preparation, thereby proving that training is important."

I did not say "....the extra few months of training were a great advantage to the Germans." However, I would contend that they were an advantage. Every country keeps raising its school leaving age, so this does not seem a particularly contentious premise.

Cheers,

Sid.

Post Reply

Return to “Propaganda, Culture & Architecture”