German military performances

"All's quiet on the Western front"-the b.w version (1930) with Lew Ayres, the newer version (color) with Ernest Borgnine and Iam Holm playing corporal Himmeltoss..l prefer the latter, for it's more realistic, and there is a scene which brought a sweet-sour feeling of nostalgia. Himmeltoss' platoon has completed its training and it is reviewed by the school commandant-and parade before ..All of those who have served in th military have been through that and can associate with it.......I took a course in Demography some time ago, and came across actual statistics of the various ailments causd by malnutrition among German civilians. will see if l can dig up the report l prepared-..In Germany the winter of 1916 was known as "Turnip Winter"....

 

Germany only loses when they are overwhelmed , it took a lot to take out the germans in both ww1 and ww2 , they had the finest military in the world. even though they were low on supplies , and towards the middle of the war they were low on fuel, and that they put great resources into building a low quantity of high quality weapons.

 

Germany could have won WWI if the u.s. either stopped supplying france and Britain or gave Germany more supplies. Saying that the U.S was neutral for most of WWI is false, they kept both France and Britain in the war.

 

I have my private reasons to dislike the German war performance.
But, seen from a professional as well as human point of view, in both wars, maybe particularly in WW2, on eastern front, they were unsurpassed as soldiers and commanders. If one takes into account the unbelievably harsh conditions of Russian winter, the roads, the problems with supplies, the partisans, the always insufficient gasoline, the crushing numbers of Russians (last but not least) and their weapons (later in the war) – their achievements were not less than heroic, IMO.

Maybe the fear of being taken prisoner, maybe the Nazi ideology, the very WILL to survive the winter made them great, but – whatever – they were great. Not only as cannon-meat, but as a disciplined, extremely effective war machine. I have been to Germany several times. Tried to mingle with elderly men on several occasions. Some of them were actually shared their experiences from the eastern front with me, a Jewish boy. Most of them had been just soldiers.
Their stories made great impression on me. The things they were telling me about their sufferings, their fear, the general spirit of solidarity. It´s undescribable. (Maybe the movie “Das Boot” shows some of this spirit). Some have also the “pleasure” to spend some years in horrific labor camps in Russia as “POWs”. Another horrible chapter. Plus the stories about the Germany they returned to: a heap of ruins, hungry, desperate but brave people….

When I think “German” I have these men in front of my eyes. Also Auschwitz. Sure. But these men have been through hell too. Most of them were aware that that was a consequence of their nation´s wrong choice. But most of them were not in a voting age when Schickelhuber was chosen.

As Jew, I cannot forget the millions of my people. But I deeply deplore the millions of other nations, not least the Germans.

I don´t know what is it about the Germans that makes them so efficient, so well organized and hardworking. Maybe some of you, people of similar racial stock: Britons, Dutch, can explain to me how the Germanic mentality works?

 

Well, I don't really believe in racial stock. I also doubt a Dutchman is like a German in many ways.

I think German strength in both world wars originates in a very deep self-confidence which has existed since the unification of the country in 1871. In this year they defeated an old enemy, France; they were unified by an autocratic, militaristic country with a glorious history of self-made strength. In the thirty years that followed they became from a European backwater to an industrial, economical and military superpower. If anything will generate confidence in a nation it'd have to be progress. It seems that the Germans take this confidence and shape it into efficient organization, unbelievable strength of will, and the wish to work hard to keep all this intact. All Hitler have to do in 1933-1939 is generate strength and progress, the Germans themselves did the rest.

Similar things can be said of the Japanese after 1867 and again after 1945; of the Russians after the 1930s; of the Chinese, the French after 1789 and so on.

 

Source for that claim? I have read several books on Patton and have not encountered that opinion. If anything Patton was somewhat chauvinistic/nationalist in his views. He expressed admiration for the fighting qualitities of the Germans yet I don't recall him ever comparing his own men unfavorably with them. In fact he never doubted that his men could beat them and he expressed that opinion often.

 

Hi Grieg - I don't think that KBO will be able to answer, as he was recently banned.
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2247

 

Hi,

I think that Germans performance in both wars surpassed all the allies.

In the 1st there were crushing and fast victories scored by the germans on all fronts in the early stages before it ground to a halt as tactics/offensive equipment had not kept pace with MG's, mines and artillary.

again in the 2nd they scored quick and painfully easy victories in many places and with the exception of north africa which was under resourced and russia, where it was slowly bled due to poor planing and high command the army was virtually undefeated until overwhelmed.

I doubt that the allies could have won either war without the intervention of the US by resources in the early stages and then later physical men and guns.

As to why the Germans are just so damned good? Well despite what is believed in WW2 I doubt it's their Germanic stock. Most german soldiers were not of "pure blood" anyway though those units that were, were often highly fanatical beyond what you would expect.

I think that at first they were good as they had a will to win and a vision/plan to actually see it done, then later they were good as they had a will to survive rather than just capituate and kiss ass.

The British were never fighting to defend our own physical soil and as such on the defensive lacked fanatical grit that can only be gained by watching your own houses burn. As the tide turned the men just wanted to survive (a good instinct) and therefore were just more damn cautious than aggresive.

As for the Russians and French. Well the Russians showed grit throughout the war but often lacked tactics or equipment to do the job. I do not feel that their commitment to the battle should be doubted in anyway given the sacrifice they made. As for the French, well as a brit I have shall we say certain prejadices to there fighting ability , but I can't explain their poor performances and lack of commitment at times when defending their own land from aggression. Again that could be due to poor high command/equipment but they just didn't have the will to suffer the huge loss of life to defend every inch that Russia showed. Maybe they were just more civilised?

FNG

 

[/quote]

You already gave the main reasonoor high command.
As to wether french showed the will for sacrifice, do not forget that in the may-june campaign of 1940, France lost over 100.000 men, and some 350.000 soldiers in the whole war which is not that much less than Britain.
Not many countries in WW2 lost so many soldiers in such a short time.

The big difference between France and Russia is space and human ressources.
The red army got as much defeated in the summer of 1941(over 3 million prisoners were taken by the germans) as the french army in 1940, but the russians had the advantages of huge country and endless demographic ressources.
This enabled Russia to survive the first german sucesses,create fresh forces , learn how the german method for warfare works and eventually strike back.

France did not have those advantages, after the early german sucesses, there just was no space left to retreat,and reorganize, no reserves to put into the fight.
Or do you think without it's huge geographical space and big demographical ressources, Russia could still have won the war??

Also, if you look at the 1940 campaign, the decisive german breakthroughs(mainly on the Meuse) were achieved by the best units of the Wehrmacht(the Panzer divisions) against french reservist forces.The germans also enjoyed complete air superiority, so those results are hardly surprising.

I agree that the french soldiers of 1940 did often not show the same readiness for sacrifice as those of 1914, but the reasons for that are clear, the soldiers soon realized that their generals did not really know what they were doing, no clear orders were given....

After the first shocks, the french army learned how to deal with the panzers and ennemy air superiority and there are uncounted reports of heroic resistance, but at that stage it was too late.

Also, note that after the 1940 defeat, many french units continued the fight and especially from 1942-43 onwards they were reequipped by the allies and participated sucesfully in all major allied operations, in Tunisia, Italy, France, Germany....

 

No problem we probably have the same prejudices about the english....

 

As I said, my knowledge of the French battles/units is limmited so I am not in a position to comment further.

However I did not realise they lost so many troops in 1940 and yes such a lost would have been catstrophic given the man power, resouces and space available to recoup. Britain was the same in 1940 as even though our troop loss was much smaller we were effectivly defeated and for the taking. Only a stretch of water and unusual lack of german forsight saved our butts!

FNG

 

A bl**dy big navy kind of helped as well

 

I wrote "Germanic stock" but should maybe have axplained what I mean: It is not race, at least – not just race I had in mind. It´s mixture of inborn traits and their culture.
When people think: Japanese, they usually imagine very effective organisation, high quality of production, hard work, work for the good of the community and not just individualism, maybe too much conformity.
Russians: various opinions, depending on situation: able to extreme sacrifice, tough in hard conditions, lazy, maybe fanatical sometimes, too much vodka, poor quality of products, genius or stupidity. Laziness . often. Strange mixture….
Germans: Hard working, disciplined, devoted, able to sacrifice for the good of society, cruel, dependable, helpful, high quality of all they do, high culture: Mozart etc, stupid folklore with sausage and beer – big bellies. You name it.
Serbs: violent, kind hearted, bragging, lazy, Yugo car – a catastrophe.
Jews: (you´d better think for yourselves)
and so on.

What is so striking about the Germans, for me: the sense for quality. Ability and wish to work very hard and efficiently. A considerable organisatory and engineering genius, as well as artistic genius.
But at the same time: rather widespread kind of – poor taste, tendency to extremes, both politically, intellectually and morally (Kant and Auschwitz).
This nation fascinates me truly. Many of their traits have been there for hundreds, maybe thousands of years. It´s not that they began to build grandiose buildings due to Speer. Look at the Koeln Dome, look at the Marienburg castle (Malbork) – the seat for the Kreuzer Order. They have been excellent soldiers already during the Ancient Rome. It´s not just the last century or two.

What is it that does that from the totally ruined land rose new Germany: not militaristic, democratic, somehow mentally castrated (on the scale of society), but still able to built some of the best and most reliable cars, photography cameras…. Even the funny east German Trabi was an extremely reliable car. Even the emasculated and totally looted by soviets part of Germany was able to produce Trabi: the undestructible wunder (I dare say so, because I had the luck of having had one:

my trabi was vintage 1968, bought by me in 1989, sold 1½ ys later (for 200$), I hsd tears in my eyes when I had to sell it, on leaving Europe.

Another example of nationality: Danes. They have a good opinion. Tolerance, freedom, joy, nature-lovers. Nice, hospitable, humanistic Scandinavians.
As a Jew and foreigner, I have never ever experienced more strange mentality than the Danish. The main national characteristic being jealousy and, for me, a surprisingly high grade of egoism. Most Danes are deeply convinced that their country, they, their system is the best in the world, period.
It is not. It is in Denmark and not in Germany, Russia or Poland that I met real anti-Semitism and an unbelievable xenophobia. I understood it as a deeply hidden complex of inferiority.
So – a nation genetically very close to Germans developed very differnent characteristics.
Strange.
Sorry for the digression.

Why are the Germans excellent soldiers, builders and engineers throughout centuries?

What is this that made once excellent soldiers and administrators of the ancient Rome to the present time Berlusconi and not very brave armed forces as well as corruption and mafia/state partnership?
What process is this?

(If I offended any nationality in any way – so it was unintended. My opinion about Denmark, although a fruit of much frustration, stress and re – living of what a Jew might feel in Germany in the 30s. I needed to write it in order to explain what puzzles me in societies and not to seek revenge).

 

Izaak,
Much of what you write about is what many more think yet do not voice their opinions for fear of being called racist or some such label.
I also recognize many of the sterotypical characteristics that you noted but like you(I think) do not attribute it to "race" so much as to culture. After all, as to race, there is no significant difference between most all northern europeans. Most all are descended from the same northern Germanic tribes.

 

Hi Grieg! It´s been a long time!

What is even more funny, the most quintessential German characteristics - the Preussian ones - are of genetically very mixed background.
Many of you may know that the eastern part of Germany is genetically predominantly Slavic. There are even today minuscule Slavic enclaves within Germany, in no way connected with any existing coutry.

So, the Preussians - builders of militaristic Germany are Slavic, mostly. A VERY strang paradox, isn´t it? Just look at the names of towns and small places in present eastern part of Germany: great many of them sound unmistakably Slavic. It looks as WW2 was, for the European´s part mostly a fight between two Slavic tendencies (Geisten)!

 

I'm not very much in favour of these theories of race, Izaak. I'd prefer it if, like Grieg, you'd refer to the traits you notice as cultural.

What you say about the Italians and Germans is largely untrue, by the way, since the Germans of Roman times aren't the same people as the Germans today. The Great Migrations of the 5th-8th centuries moved the Roman-era Germans into what is now France, Scandinavia and England; the Roman-era Romans were mixed with all kinds of steppe peoples and Goths. What I'm trying to say is that as much as post-Darwinist theorists wished to justify national glory by racial theories that they claimed ran milleniae deep, they just don't. A people today is not the same as the same people anywhere in history. A fine example is the currently deeply pacifist Germany, unrecognizable in spirit when compared to Prussia.

 

"Foreigners stand astonished and attracted by the riddles revealed in the contradictions of the german soul"

Friederich Nietzsche

I speak german since the age of 14, and Germany was the first foreign country I came in contact with.
If I'd have to characterize them in soe words I would say they are:

-Philosphical:
Hegel, Schopenauer, Nietzsche, Kant, Leibniz....Germany surely is the "Land der Dichter und Denker"(country of thinkers and poets).
Much more so than France, altough no frenchmen would readily admit that.

-they tend to social conformity:
very striking for every frenchmen visiting Germany, if a german sees that his neighbour cleans his car, he has got to do the same, the vision of his neighbour having a cleaner car than himself is unbearable for a german.
For a german it's usually very important what other people think of him, whereas a frenchmen in his self confidence does not really care what other people may think about him.


-they tend to extremes:
Both in positive and negative ways.
From the biggest nationalist, they became the biggest democrats/internationalists/europeans.Everything they do, they do it "gründlich"(thouroughly), be it in football, industry, ....

-ecological:
I do not know another people that cares so much about ecological problems.Germans have a great love for nature, who else is so much concerned about "Waldsterben", ozone problems.No wonder they do have the most important green party in Europe.

-much respect for authority:
Germans(as opposed to french) are very authority/law respecting.
On a german street, if the signal is red, noone will corss that street, even if no car can be seen for miles.
The saying goes that "In Germany everything is forbidden that is not strictly allowed whereas in France everything is allowed that is not strictly forbidden"

-they love order:
Germans seem to fear any form of disorder, they have to organize everything they do till the very last detail whereas the frenchmen goes often for improvisation.

-readiness for self criticism:
Germans are readily self critic, a quality they miss with frenchmen, britons, americans....

-work ethic:
no furter comment

I hope I have not offended any german member.
These are just some observations I made while visiting Germany.

 

I must admit that race ideas within Europe are pointless. The UK is made up of English, Welsh, Viking, Italian and German stock up until 1066 when a load of French stock was added. But as the Norman's were actually French/Viking stock it probably made little difference.

It is more about culture than race and culture is more defined by where you live than by your genetics.

By the way, the Germans are no more antisemetic than the british. The jews were just scapegoated by a very good propaganda machine and then taken away in private by people you did not mess with.

As for the RN saving the day, I doubt they made a massive difference. Had the Germans succeeded in obtaining air supremacy over the south east that would have included the channel which would then be a no go area for the big ships which would just be big vulnrable targets.

FNG

 

-much respect for authority:
Germans(as opposed to french) are very authority/law respecting.
On a german street, if the signal is red, noone will corss that street, even if no car can be seen for miles.
The saying goes that "In Germany everything is forbidden that is not strictly allowed whereas in France everything is allowed that is not strictly forbidden"

Just to back this up, I've seen this myself, at about 2 a.m., a group of Germans waiting patiently to cross the road, even though there was not a car for miles around. I basically grew up on British Army camps in Germany and one of the things that really struck me returning to England was people crossing the road, and how they watched me waiting for the light to turn green like I was mad... (...and how uncomfortable I felt crossing the road when it wasn't!). It's wierd but it does become ingrained in you somehow.