U.S. Army vs German Army

>Well first off in your initial post you intentionally chose to attack anyone that might disagree with your conclusions.
Its true that I have a very low opinion of the SBers, and chose to make my opinion public. Even so, why would that ruffle your feathers? Do you get upset whenever someone says something mean about random online entitys? Or maybe my claims of jingoism hit a little too close to home?

>I first read it circa 1985 and at the time thought he made some good points, but drew some flawed conclusions and ignored many relevant factors.
Please elaborate in detail. I'd like to hear more. The validity of crevelds thesis (that germany was superior in terms of fighting power) is why I started this thread.

>Also, it is a theory not a proven fact as many reputable works have been produced debunking van Creveld's thesis in the 34 years since "Fighting Power" first appeared.
I don't think a flat out debunking is likely, because of the inductive nature of his work. Crevelds thesis is based on observation of U.S. and german armys different organisation (according to their official documents), and speculating how it affected their performance on the battlefield (by making a theory and seeing if it matchs the historical records). In order to debunk his thesis, you would need to find fault with either his observations or his speculation. I'm aware of people who dislike crevelds work, but they've never really put forward a solid rebuttal, other than noting some minor exceptions to his claims.

>To balance your thesis you should also examine the German systems weaknesses and what the US did right.
Well, its not as if I deny any shortcomings in the heers organisation. Their replacement system worked at a slower pace than the americans, but it ultimately turned out to be a much better compromise. Theres almost never a 100% solution in war, at best you can get 90%. I might consider adding a note to this on my article, just so readers can see both sides of the coin

>You do know that Dupuy himself has publicly questioned some of the conclusions van Creveld drew from Dupuy's work, right? You might want to add some of works of Peter Mansoor, Michael Doubler, Keith Bonn, and Russell A. Hart to get the opposing view.
Fair enough. I'm not married to dupuys work, I merely use it as a broad compendium which contains alot of obscure details. But if you can give me more specific details (name of the books, and relevant chapters), I'll make sure to check out these guys.

 

I hate to point this out to you, but this isn't the "SBers" board and you aren't talking to "SBers" here. So you may want to limit your disdain for that board to there rather than here...at least until you get your feet wet.

It ruffles my feathers when someone talks about "Creveld's thesis". It wasn't his, it was Trevor's, Creveld just expropriated it after filing off the serial numbers. Meanwhile, when I dislike parts of Creveld's work its because of inaccuracies and poor analysis.

Not the least of the Heer replacement system problems was that it kept between 25% and 30% of its forces undeployed and undeployable during the war, which was something the American Army realized early on was impractical for them. It also only worked for the Germans because, as I already remarked, they were fighting a continental war.

The problem common to all those guys is they want to ignore the distinction between tactical, operational, and strategic levels of war. And a lot of their arguments end up as variations of "I don't believe it and I'm going to hold my breath until I turn blue unless you agree with me". The Germans were great at tactical and operational-tactical levels of warfare, not so good at operational-strategic, and simply out of their depth in strategic levels of warfare. The Americans and British were great at strategic and operational-strategic levels, but had to learn some harsh realities about the operational-tactical and tactical levels, making quite a few mistakes on the way.

 

I have to disagree with this one .

 

Big surprise. And so eloquent.

 

If someone (probably a Stormfront recruit ) is claiming that the US army is inferior in fighting power to the German army (translation : the individual German soldier is better than the individual American soldier )while the truth is that it was the opposite,the truth is not an amalgamation ( a compromise ) between the opposing positions: the truth is that the first claim in the usual lie one can expect from that direction, and there is no compromise possible between a lie and the truth .

The whole historiography of WWII (which is the only one the public knows ) is swarming from such lies;I could easily cite 10 exemples, and no serious historian would say :we must accept that there is some truth in these lies .

 

I wouldn't use compromise as the synonym for my use of the word amalgamation, it has too many negative connotations associated with it. I would use combination, union, blend, mixture, or fusion which are closer to the meaning I intended.

Let's examine this statement here. You state, emphatically, that man for man the German soldier was not better than the American soldier. How about in 1940? The US was just beginning to mobilize, the Germans had been mobilizing for years, they had a great deal of time training, practicing and refining their tactics and doctrine, they had practical experience gleaned from their earlier conflicts, they had a significant number of personnel that had actually "seen the elephant", been in actual combat and had learned the hard realities. I would say that few could argue that at this particular point in time the German soldier was definitely the superior. In September and October of 1944, I would say that the situation had reversed 180 degrees, that the US soldier was superior to his German counterpart. There is no single, definitive truth for the war as a whole because the truth changed over time.

 

Lies? Yes, there are people who lie, who claim something that does not exist.

For example: Churchill was 6' 6". That is a lie.

Or.

The Allies overwhelming failed at Normandy. Another lie.

My point being, and maybe it's just semantics, is that the OP was making a claim. He was using evidence gathered from various sources, regardless of their leanings. It wasn't a lie, it was an opinion. Perhaps if the original claim was made with less rude undertones the OP would be taken more seriously. Regardless, he's not lying about the German soldier being a stronger fighting man at the beginning of the war.

This is historiography at its finest. Writing a thesis basing his agenda on published sources which have similar themes. This thread is a perfect example of dissenting historical opinions supplied with evidence. No lies.

 

I thinks that's about as accurate and succinct as the situation can be described. Well done!

 

In 1940 Germany and US were not at war, thus one can not say that in 1940 the German soldier was better than the American soldier .

Besides, the German soldier was NOT superior in 1940 : there are no superior soldiers ,because if there were superior soldiers, there would be inferior soldiers .

 

The German soldier was never superior to any Allied soldier (including the SU ) and the Allied soldier was never superior to a German soldier . Soldiers are soldiers and German was not superior to a Soviet (those who say this belong to the usual suspects ):there are no" better" soldiers and the outcome of the war/a battle was not decided by the quality (if it existed )of the individual soldiers from the different fighting countries .

Besides : there is no such thing as "the German soldier " or the "American " soldier .

 

Huh?

It is completely irrelevant whether or not in 1940 they were belligerents. The German soldier in 1940 was indeed well schooled and more combat ready compared to the U.S. soldier. Did that evolve? Yes. Two opposite sides do not need to be confrontational in order to gauge training regimens and battle testing of individual soldiers.

 

No "someone" is claiming anything of the sort. The inference that this nonexistent "person" is a "Stormfront recruit" is simply your usual scurrilous attempt at yet another strawman. I would ask the moderators to censure your conduct as it warrants.

I for one would appreciate it if you would substantiate your 10 "exemples [sic]" in detail.

Then substantiate my lies. Otherwise I suggest you should STFU.

 

No : it is not irrelevant : only a war can decide which army was "better" ,and which soldier was better schooled and more combat ready : there is no war between US and Canada, thus it is impossible to say that the US / Canadian soldier is more schooled,more combat ready .

 

Yet another strawman. No one ever said the individual "soldier" was better. They all varied. However, warfare is no more about the individual person - in the end - than its is about "which tank is better".

It is a combination of better training, better motivation, better equipment, better doctrine, better logistics, and better leadership at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels, inextricably linked to experience and morale.

Your attempting a reductio ab adsurdam which declares the discussion is just about "better soldiers" is a moronic strawman of the worst sort.

Your further attempt at existentialism, declaring the nonexistence of Germans or Americans is even worse.

 

You are the only person asserting a comparison between Canadian and US soldiers here. Yet another strawman.

 

End your irrelevant evasions and substantiate your 10 examples and my lying. Or STFU.

 

"Round and round the mulberry bush"

I disagree. History dictates that we can have a cordial debate on the topic. I could also draw conclusions between the Russian and U.S. soldier based on historical record. You see, people write about history and they draw conclusions. Historians take those ideas and draw similar or differing opinions as the research is expanded. That's historiography.

 

Exemples :

War in North Africa : the myth that Malta was decisive, the myth that the Italian navy failed to supply Rommel, the myth that it was the fault of Rommel,because he advance to much .

War in the East: Russian winter one of the causes for the failure of Barbarossa : this nonsense was written by an American major in a thesis to fulfil the degree of military art and science.!

The same major claimed things as : Stalin eliminated 75 % of the Soviet senior officers,the Germans planned to defeat the Soviets using the same tactics that defeated Poland and France, Lucy played a great role in Citadel,Citadel (which he confounds with Kursk ) depleted what was left of the German strategic reserves, about Barbarossa : a Blitzkrieg in the vast spaces of the SU .

Every year, myriads of such nonsense appear and there is no amalgamation possible : such nonsense must be throwed under the bus .

The OP is also nonsense, with a hidden political agenda . It is very obvious which is the agenda of some one who claims that the German soldier was better than the American soldier . When the German soldier fought against an American soldier ,he lost . That is the truth .

 

As usual : reading problems .

 

Prove that I say that you lied !