Was the German Army (Heer) really so superior?

[Bravo Zero]

Originally Posted by Nick the Noodle

One. The Soviets could have done it by themselves. The US could definitely have done it by 6.8.45 without sending one troop over to Europe. If you read this and this it more than appears that just by hanging on the UK would have beaten the Nazis as well.



Racialist? But the Nazi's were not Nationalistic. They gassed German WW1 iron cross recipients just for being the wrong religeon.



Define honourable defeat?

However, with a name like B0 I suspect you may not be all you appear.

Of course the Soviets could have defeated the Nazis by themselves, they had the largest Army in the world while the entire population of the USSR was nearly 200 million people. The Wehrmacht and the SS had practically inflicted genocide on the Russian military without it even putting a dent on their reserves. The casualties they had inflicted alone within the first year of Operation Barbarossa would have finished off any other country.

How do i define an honerble defeat? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that many folk believe the war should have ended in 1943 and not 1945. Two more years of heavy fighting for a defeated and exausted Army.

As for my name, please don't insult it as i could quite easily rearrange the letters of yours to come up with something more insulting.

P.S..If you are going to give me bad rep points, at least do so for valid reasons and not in an attempt to spam, cheers.

[Nick the Noodle]

Originally Posted by Bravo Zero

Of course the Soviets could have defeated the Nazis by themselves, they had the largest Army in the world while the entire population of the USSR was nearly 200 million people. The Wehrmacht and the SS had practically inflicted genocide on the Russian military without it even putting a dent on their reserves. The casualties they had inflicted alone within the first year of Operation Barbarossa would have finished off any other country.

How do i define an honerble defeat? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that many folk believe the war should have ended in 1943 and not 1945. Two more years of heavy fighting for a defeated and exausted Army.

As for my name, please don't insult it as i could quite easily rearrange the letters of yours to come up with something more insulting.

P.S..If you are going to give me bad rep points, at least do so for valid reasons and not in an attempt to spam, cheers.

You have me all wrong. I thought you were another member here, a known jester who likes to stir the pot. By backing the Nazi soldiers and yet calling yourself BO I thought it was just a sly poke at some of us here. For that I am truly sorry and will make no reference to it again.

However, your opinion on the Nazi's stinks imo .

[m kenny]

Originally Posted by Bravo Zero

How do i define an honerble defeat? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that many folk believe the war should have ended in 1943 and not 1945. Two more years of heavy fighting for a defeated and exausted Army.

Just because they were too stupid to recognise defeat does not negate the scale of the defeat. The body was still twitching in 1945 but it was mortaly wounded in 1943.
I hear the sound of straws being grasped..............

[Imperial]

Originally Posted by m kenny

Well they certainly were stupid.
By 1943 their defeat was inevitable. Any sensible person would have sought terms. By mid 1944 the end no longer deniable even to the most rabid SS pervert. In truth they were beaten in 1944 but they refused to admit it. This made sure millions of Germans died for no good reason. The last 8 months of the war were completely pointless and gained Germany no advantage whatsoever.

There was no room for terms in the unconditional surrender the Allies were asking for. As for the German leaders, you have to consider what opinions they had on the Kaiser's decision in 1919.

[The Exorcist]

Originally Posted by m kenny

Just because they were too stupid to recognise defeat does not negate the scale of the defeat. The body was still twitching in 1945 but it was mortaly wounded in 1943.
I hear the sound of straws being grasped..............

Are you confusing the political leadership with the Soldiers in the field?
Deliberately?

[m kenny]

Originally Posted by Exorcist

Are you confusing the political leadership with the Soldiers in the field?
Deliberately?

A fish rots from the head down.

I call any man stupid who fights to promote a system that is destroying his country and as a consequence inflicts unecesary casualties of at least 1 million on his own people.
Make a cogent case that this is not so without resorting to trite phrases like 'duty', 'honour' or 'fatherland'.
There really does come a point when resistence is futile and the umpteen millions of civilians caught in the crossfire should be allowed the choice of surrender instead of dying so as to conform to an insane soldier's ideas of glory and a 'heroes' death.

[The Exorcist]

Originally Posted by m kenny

A fish rots from the head down.

So do people, and civilizations.

Originally Posted by m kenny

I call any man stupid who fights to promote a system that is destroying his country and as a consequence inflicts unecesary casualties of at least 1 million on his own people.
Make a cogent case that this is not so without resorting to trite phrases like 'duty', 'honour' or 'fatherland'.

Trite?
I'm not ready to hold those concepts in contempt.
But, I'm not a Leftist, so...

Originally Posted by m kenny

There really does come a point when resistence is futile and the umpteen millions of civilians caught in the crossfire should be allowed the choice of surrender instead of dying so as to conform to an insane soldier's ideas of glory and a 'heroes' death.

Yes, there does, that is actually an excellent point, and one that has been a serious source of good discussion ever since WW2 all over the world.And that is one instance where they undeniably should have done so. In fact, some of them tried.
... remember how that Tom Cruise movie about that little event was mocked?
I am also hoping that my own nation's military can't be used to destroy my life and property on the whim of some Manchurian Candidate.

But where do we draw the line? The media tells us that every war is immoral when there is a President they don't like in office, or they try to get us into weird and bogus causes like Somalia or Darfur.

This is important and cogent to our lives here and now;
In an age where the education system teaches that morality is judgmental and stupid, where only the most brutal and violent religion is not mocked daily, and where a new version of history is adopted every year.... where are people supposed to get their moral compass from?

[Bravo Zero]

Originally Posted by Nick the Noodle

You have me all wrong. I thought you were another member here, a known jester who likes to stir the pot. By backing the Nazi soldiers and yet calling yourself BO I thought it was just a sly poke at some of us here. For that I am truly sorry and will make no reference to it again.

However, your opinion on the Nazi's stinks imo .

Ok, fair enough. Just to let it be known i have no desire to cause any argument, and i don't call myself BO, it's Bravo Zero.

I am quite confused about the term 'Nazi soldiers'?. I thought the real Nazis were the members of the elected NSDAP?. Nazi being a shortened term for Nationalsozialistische Deutche Arbeiterpartei, while the Wehrmacht were just ordinary Soldiers, Sailers and Airmen who had to swear oath of loyalty to Hitler?

[lcm1]

Originally Posted by Bravo Zero

Ok, fair enough. Just to let it be known i have no desire to cause any argument, and i don't call myself BO, it's Bravo Zero.

I am quite confused about the term 'Nazi soldiers'?. I thought the real Nazis were the members of the elected NSDAP?. Nazi being a shortened term for Nationalsozialistische Deutche Arbeiterpartei, while the Wehrmacht were just ordinary Soldiers, Sailers and Airmen who had to swear oath of loyalty to Hitler?

Or BZ to his friends!! lcm1

[clackers]

Originally Posted by Bravo Zero

I am quite confused about the term 'Nazi soldiers'?. I thought the real Nazis were the members of the elected NSDAP?. Nazi being a shortened term for Nationalsozialistische Deutche Arbeiterpartei, while the Wehrmacht were just ordinary Soldiers, Sailers and Airmen who had to swear oath of loyalty to Hitler?

Not many members of the Wehrmacht were card-carrying Nazis, B0, just de facto ones.

At one stage in the 1930s it seemed possible that the Army was going to be replaced by Ernst Roehm's SA as the chief 'men at arms' organization in Germany.

But Hitler did a deal with the Army to look the other way during the Night of the Long Knives and win their loyalty.

It was a mutual love affair between the blue-collar Austrian and the Prussian nobles.

He got to be overall commander, they get lots of new recruits and toys, and they could go on and break the Treaty of Versailles together.

[Robbie Lynne]

Originally Posted by clackers

Not many members of the Wehrmacht were card-carrying Nazis, B0, just de facto ones.

At one stage in the 1930s it seemed possible that the Army was going to be replaced by Ernst Roehm's SA as the chief 'men at arms' organization in Germany.

But Hitler did a deal with the Army to look the other way during the Night of the Long Knives and win their loyalty.

It was a mutual love affair between the blue-collar Austrian and the Prussian nobles.

He got to be overall commander, they get lots of new recruits and toys, and they could go on and break the Treaty of Versailles together.

Many of the soldiers were not saints by any means, many went into the fight and with their eyes wide open..the sensless slaughter of innocents and to even defend them is IMO..

[MonsterZero]

The general consensus seems to be that German officers and NCOs were the best in the world. This cadre of superb officers and NCOs gave the Germans the edge over their opponents in early victories.

As you know, during the 1930s Germany was limited to an army of only 100,000 soldiers.

Because of this limitation, the entry requirements for professional soldiers trying to gain admission into the army were very strict and only the best candidates were accepted. The ones that gained entry received superb training and they became the leadership core of the army.

German conscripts were not that different from English or French constricts and they often lacked training and experience. However, they were well-treated and well-paid (the best pay in European armies at the time) and given generous home leave so their morale was high.

In contrast, the French army which was supposed to be the best in the world, had brutally low pay and impoverished living conditions for ordinary soldiers. Drunkenness and poor discipline were very common.

French train stations even had special sober-up rooms were drunk men in uniform could go to pass out while waiting for the train so they wouldn't stagger all over the platform with civilians looking on.

[ljadw]

Poor discipline and drunkenness also were found in the WM in september 1939,drunkenness can be found in all armies .
And,the drunkenness and poor discipline did not prevent the French from bitter fighting in may/june 1940.

[MonsterZero]

Originally Posted by ljadw

Poor discipline and drunkenness also were found in the WM in september 1939,drunkenness can be found in all armies .
And,the drunkenness and poor discipline did not prevent the French from bitter fighting in may/june 1940.

I heard a different version of the story. I heard that there was widespread defeatism throughout the French army, starting with commander-in-chief Maurice Gamelin and going down the ranks. The French primer minister referred to Gamelin as a "gutless philosopher", a terrible thing to say about your own CIC.

I heard that in the French society at the time, political disunity was so bad the communists and leftists were seen as a greater evil compared to the Germans. The French middle class would have rather welcomed German soldiers in their cities.

This will always be a controversial subject.

[ljadw]

I doubt that the French PM was saying this about Gamelin,because the French PM (Daladier) was responsible for the nomination of Gamelin as army chief before the war .Probably,the critique came from Reynaud (a strong enemy of Daladier)
OTOH,it also is true that Gamelin was no good as army commander:he was some one without civil courage (as the Germans were saying) :no backbone,that's why the politicians had chosen him :he never was making problems.
Gamelin always was evading his responsability ,he would have been better doing as a politician.