Was the German Army (Heer) really so superior? - Page 4 - Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History

Bravo Zero · #46 04 Feb 12, 17:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShAA

What a terrible injustice for guys wearing such cool uniforms, killing inferior peoples with such efficience and staying loyal to their maniacal government to the bitter end!

Of course the Red Army acted so honorably while serving their own personnel paranoid alcoholic dictator who killed a

load of his own people for fear of a coup.

BF69 · #47 04 Feb 12, 17:46

I was around 4-5. Better than the available opposition at the start but needed to win with the first punch. Others matched & even bettered the Heer once they found their feet.

I often wonder how things might have played out if the French had properly defended the Ardennes & the better French & British units had been able to withdraw in good order. Perhaps still a loss, but an interesting scenario if they can hang on until winter.

Emtos · #48 04 Feb 12, 17:47

Quote:

Of course the Red Army acted so honorably while serving their own personnel paranoid alcoholic dictator who killed a load of his own people for fear of a coup.

Nice. After experts on climate change and muslim world, we have now one specialised in psychiatry and alcoholism.

ShAA · #49 04 Feb 12, 17:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bravo Zero

Of course the Red Army acted so honorably while serving their own personnel paranoid alcoholic dictator who killed a

load of his own people for fear of a coup.

The Red Army defended their country and their people. What did the German army do?

Wellington95 · #50 04 Feb 12, 17:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShAA

The Red Army defended their country and their people. What did the German army do?

They tried to do that...

Emtos · #51 04 Feb 12, 17:56

Quote:

They tried to do that...

Of course. The best location to defend Germany was in Belgium, France, Norway, SU and a bunch of other countries.

Wellington95 · #52 04 Feb 12, 18:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emtos

Of course. The best location Germany was in Belgium, France, Norway, SU and a bunch of other countries.

Well obviously, I guess I'm referring to the last year of the war.

Cannot the same sort of be said of the Soviet Union (as they occupied half of Europe after the war). Although that wasn't necessarily for "defense."

Emtos · #53 04 Feb 12, 18:08

Quote:

Well obviously, I guess I'm referring to the last year of the war.

Without the events ofs 1939-1942, there will be no need for them to defend their motherland. They put themsalves in this postion unlike the others who were forced to fighting agains an invasion.

Quote:

Cannot the same sort of be said of the Soviet Union (as they occupied half of Europe after the war). Although that wasn't necessarily for "defense."

It's different for various raisons and defense agains a Western attack was one of them. But this is a subject for another thread.

Destroyer25 · #54 04 Feb 12, 18:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emtos

It's different for various raisons and defense agains a Western attack was one of them. But this is a subject for another thread.

And that's justified? By that logic Germany could have taken over half of Europe so that they would be able to "feel" safe from USA.

ShAA · #55 04 Feb 12, 18:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wellington95

Well obviously, I guess I'm referring to the last year of the war.

Well, it's like saying "I was just defending myself!" after you smash a group of people in the face and then start blocking their return blows. I wonder if you're joking or what?

Quote:

Cannot the same sort of be said of the Soviet Union (as they occupied half of Europe after the war). Although that wasn't necessarily for "defense."

I hope you're not joking again. The policies of the Soviet Union were totally incomparable to what the Nazis did. And what would be necessary for the "defense" of a country which had been invaded innumerable times throughout the last millenium, both from the West and the East? I could bet a casket of whiskey that had US had a powerful rival on the continent which had repeatedly invaded it, it would have done everything short of total genocide to secure itself from his invasions, including keeping independent buffer nations under its thumb.

ShAA · #56 04 Feb 12, 18:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Destroyer25

And that's justified? By that logic Germany could have taken over half of Europe so that they would be able to "feel" safe from USA.

Did the USA have a land border with Germany? Did the USA proclaim itself a mortal enemy of Germans and the German way of life? Did the USA claim German lands?

Emtos · #57 04 Feb 12, 18:14

Quote:

And that's justified? By that logic Germany could have taken over half of Europe so that they would be able to "feel" safe from USA.

USA taken half of the Europe to be safe from USSR.

Destroyer25 · #58 04 Feb 12, 18:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShAA

Did the USA have a land border with Germany? Did the USA proclaim itself a mortal enemy of Germans and the German way of life? Did the USA claim German lands?

Russia didn't have a land border with Germany. They didn't need to oppress Eastern Europe for a decade but they did. They could have given those countries independence but they didn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emtos

USA taken half of the Europe to be safe from USSR.

USA did not occupy Europe in the manner that the USSR did. The W. Allies liberated, the USSR conquered. France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, and Italy all got independence after being liberated. Eastern Europe did not.

ShAA · #59 04 Feb 12, 18:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emtos

USA taken half of the Europe to be safe from USSR.

Good point. To be more correct, the US bought half of Europe so that the ruling classes of France and Italy wouldn't let the freely and fairly elected Communists participate in their governments. So much for democracy-schlemocracy the US likes to lecture everybody on

***RichardS*** · #60 04 Feb 12, 18:26

*gentle nudge* Stay on topic gentlemen.