German training vs the training of US/UK

[Bittrich]

Reb,

I have to say that I mostly agree with your post. Especially about the war being won by mass. I often wonder if the ratio of men and machines against Germany wasn't a little more even what would have been the outcome?

As far as the elite units the training seemed to be to be equally good. For example a Ranger battalion or the Brandenburg Commandos both accomplished amazing things even though is like comparing apples to oranges.

It is hard to say one was better than the other. Especially since they had different styles of fighting or training, but I can say that the Americans had two full years of observing how the Wehrmacht preformed in battle and ways to counter such styles. I'd say that in 1940 Germany fielded the best army but by 1944 they were fairly even with the U.S. and U.K. and not to leave them out the Soviets.

[Epaminondas]

Completely depends on the scale you are talking about as well.

Tactically, for a good chunk of the war, Germany was superior to the rest; with the margin varying considerably depending on the time period and quality of the specific units compared. [Kassrine Pass v. Bastonge]

At the Operational level, the Soviets were much better then they were at the tactical level...

And at the strategic level it is clear the Allies smoked Germany. Hitler, once the shooting started [other then Norway and France] was completely unable to judge the true strategic centers that would allow him to win the war, and consistently went after secondary objectives. We can argue all year about Moscow v. Kiev in 1941... but compare to the Allies.

Even the offensives that Germany stopped cold, the soviets had discrete objectives. The allies were much better at forcing strategy to dictate operations and tactics then let tactics dictate strategy. [even advance into france rather then breakthrough to prevent counter offensive to cause significant losses to the spearhead; destruction of the 6th army and operation bagration v. Case Blue etc]

===

The german army was built for short wars, and was forced to fight a long one. Concentrating your regulars into the panzer divisions and the motorized divisions can work if you can lop off your enemy's head and win the war in a campaign or two [Poland, France]. France had more modern equipment, more tanks and better average tank quality then the Germans did... but the Germans concentrated their mechanized forces, while the French spread it out. Mass only comes into play in long wars...

[Reb]

Epaminondas

I'd agree on all counts. We are often blinded to the strategic incompetance of the Germans by the tactical excellance. The former cost them the war; the latter made it a bloodbath for all involved.

cheers
Reb

[Bittrich]

Epaminondas,

I'd like to add that had Hitler let his Generals fight the battles such as Stalin did from Stalingrad on, that they might have had more success. I'm not suggesting the outcome would have been different but whole armies would not have been wasted such as the Sixth Army at Stalingrad or the Afrika Corps.

So to your point yes strategically Hitler was a failure. Stalin was not much better but learned to allow his commanders some freedom and quickly squashed them after the war.

Also on strategy Goerings Luftwaffe were given some tough tasks such as at Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, or Stalingrad in some no win situations. Although the men fought heroically they were not placed in winning situations.

Meanwhile the Allies better set their men up for success on the battlefield and exicuted better over all. Aside from Kasserine Pass and Market Garden on the Western Front the allies never lost a battle. Sure Italy took time but the end result was the same victory. After November 1942 till the end of the war the Germans were in retreat.

[Epaminondas]

One of the things I find facinating about WWII is how Hitler and Stalin switched strategic decision making and level of detail in orders to military units.

Begining of the War Germany was particuarly good about giving mission type orders, despite a few incidents like stopping the panzers for a day in France, and ordering a few panzer divisions NOT to attack Dunkirk.

Stalin was ordering everyone to stand fast and not give a single step backwards, and executing officers left right and center.

---

By the end of the war Stalin was giving general orders [attack on this front, but you figure out how], and Hitler was shouting not a step back and inferring with units on a very small level...

=====

One has to wonder if radio isn't a mixed blessing for the troops... sure it lets you scream for help (artillery support, close air support, reenforcements)... but the temptation for higher command and the politicians to interfer with combat operations on a microlevel is almost irresisitable.

Satillites have make it even worse...

[Kitsune]

I find this talk about the "strategic superiority" of the Allies quite ridiculous. Think about it:

Why was Germany in controlling Europe and on the verge of defeating the Soviet Union in late 1941? Because the Germans had entered the war in any way more prepared than their adversaries, probably because they had started it? Because they enjoyred a superiority as far as equipment is concerned?

Nonsense.
Germany had no conscription until 1935, its armed forces were young and untried. The country was in no way prepared for any serious conflict and the Germans did nearly never enjoy any kind of material superiority over any of their opponents. Mostly the other way round, they fought against stunningly superior forces.

How could the Germans get as far as they got? Tactical brilliance? Yes, for a part that is the answer. But the real reason is, that the Allies allowed them to take them one by one. Poland. Norway. France + BEF. Soviet Union. That's why. Hitler could attack them one by one. At the end of 1941, he had conquered a kind of Empire in record time, with comparatively small losses. And that was not only brilliance on his part. It was un-brilliance on the Allied side that made that possible.

Had the French and British acted truly clever and decisive they could have stopped Hitler in 1939. Let's not forget: the Poland crisis went on for months, no one can say that one could not see it coming. And France and Britain esssentially started the World War, THEY declared it. So there is no real excuse for their lack of decisive action.

Strategy is the art to decide where to fight your battles, someone said. I fail to see the overwhelming cleverness on the Allied side: France and Britain messed it up completely, that would cost them their Great Power status (Actually, they, along with Poland should have been able to crush Germany. They had it all: the men, the material, the better strategic positioning...but they were crushed by Germany. That doesn't look very clever to me).

The Soviet Union behaved clever at first (Stalin may have partially engineered the war situation in Europe, possibly he intended to jump in at a convenient time and reap his harvest.) But he was tricked with Barbarossa, brought to the edge of defeat. Despite possessing armed forces of monumental size. The Wehrmacht should have never been able to get that far as it did! ("In Barbarossa Blitzkrieg failed..." did it? Attacking someone who has 7 times as many tanks, 4 times as many atrillery, planes, vehicles...is completely against the book. And forget the nonsense story of German tanks being better than Soviet tanks. The Wehrmacht should have bounced off the Soviet defense like a ball from a wall. But they did not. Why? Everyone is talking about "what mistakes the Germans made so that they failed to take Moscow". The real question is: "How did they even get near to it, for Heaven's sake?")

And the USA? No question, it profitted the most, this nation is the real winner of WWII. But I don't think because of any true cleverness on their part. America is (and especially was) a country of overwhelming economic potency, enjoying a enviable secure geographical placement...the Atlantics as a super-channel so to speak. They would have made it to the top of the foodchain, WorldWar or no WorldWar. But face it: they allied with the wrong side. Their real opponent, the real threat to them in the long run, was the Soviet Union, far more so than a comparatively small and trading dependent Germany. (Not to speak about mentality or "character" in which the Germans were also much easier to get along with, at least from the American point of view, than the Russians). But instead that they acted with prudence and long-range thinking (attributes which, admittedly, were never their strongest traits) they supported the Soviet Union...and pulled that through till the end. And ending it did with half of Europe under Soviet control. And look to the far East: the Soviets saw to it that Mao made the race in China - something that has consequences to this very day. (Stalin was intend to create a junior partner for him, which failed. But nonetheless, China becoming communist may in the end be his most long lasting achievement, with repercussions for the world well into the 21st century).

Conclusion: I fail to see the strategic cleverness of the Allies. All of them behaved like imbeciles at times. And this was what created WorldWar II. and the World after it.


My 2 cents.

[Reb]

Kitsune

It only takes one BIG blunder to bring your country down in flames. Hitler made that blunder. In fact, he made two of them - one was invading the USSR without defeating the UK first. The next, and perhaps the dumbest thing who could have possibly done - was to declare war on the US.

The US govt was slobbering for a war with Germany. The US people most certainly were not. If Adolph had a lick of sense he'd fought Russian and Britain to a standstill while the US kicked Tojo around. But nope - he was in his own mind - a genius.

America was clearly the winner in WW2 - and it had nothing to do with American's strategy - it was Hitler's strategy that made America (and Russia) a winner!

And don't mistake Hitler's successes in Russia for strategic genious - holy smoke - it was anything but...Tactical genius? Abso-damn-lutely. That was what got the German troops almost to Moscow. Stragegic genius? Lack of that was what kept them from getting into Moscow.

cheers
Reb

[Bittrich]

Kitsune,

I understand your point but beg to differ on a few things.

One. America or better stated Roosevelt could not nor would it ally itself with Germany. Had they had the foresight and predicted what Stalin would do then maybe. Even that would have been a stretch. After taking Czechoslovakia and invading Poland there would be no way for an American German alliance. Especially with the political climate at the time. France and Britain were American allies and German fresh from defeat in World War One certainly would not have been.

Second. The German Army fought well against an even adversery against Britain and France, but who besides the Soviet Union who did they really have a tough fight with that was a worthy opponent? I would not think that Polands army was up to standards. Although they fought bravely they were not in no means a modern Army. Greece had help from the British but along with Denmark, Norway, Belguim, Holland, Yugoslavia, etc. were not up to standards. So to say that the Allies allowed them to take countries is an insult to the British and French who tried to help the other countries but there modern forces could not make up for the short fall of modern quality troops by those countries.

Third. The German tactics in the Soviet Union were stellar, but lets not forget that up to the Soviet counter-offensive at Moscow, Stalin had massed forces toward the Manchurian border in case Tojo decided to attack. Although the Soviets did not preform well against the Finnish troops and early on against the Germans, they had a trump card. Numerous resources that the Germans did not, but they also had poor strategic decisions by Stalin.

Fourth. Besides Market-Garden and Kasserine Pass when were the Allies defeated after November of 1942? To say that by that stage in the war they did not have better strategy seems to me to be misleading. How else did they manage to push the Germans back? Yes they had more resources but that also played into their strategy. For example to Western Allies tried to coordinate the Normandy invasion with a Soviet Offensive. Try to pin the Germans down in the east while facing weaker opposition they could land in France.

Five. While speaking of strategy what about the Soviets at Kursk. Yes they had Enigma messages, but they planned an excellent counter attack. They had about six defensive rings and wore down the Germans before striking back. Also what about the Normandy invasion itself. The amount of deception that went into planning helped insure its success.

Finally I appreciate your point of view even if I personally don't agree.

[Epaminondas]

No one is saying that the allies made NO mistakes...

what we are saying is that at the strategic level the allies made less mistakes then Germany did... and that most of the mistakes that the allies made were recoverable.

Hitler made alot of strategic mistakes that cost him the war- Dunkirk, targeting cities in England rather then airfields, going for Stalingrad and the Caucus rather then picking one objective; refusing to allow the generals to fight a mobile war; ordering Paulus to NOT breakout; calling Kursk off right when they were on the verge of a breakthrough [if you are going double or nothing, have the balls to go for broke; going half way and retreating was stupid...call it off before you launch] is the short list.

While the allies tripped and fell, none of their mistakes could have lost them the war (well besides france :) ). Sure the Soviet offensives until Stalingrad were clumsy and poorly executed... but the soviets had men to burn. Sure arguably Italy was a error for the Western powers; and they might have advanced faster into france; sure they should have covered the Arrdennes better... but even if the Germans had reach Paris, who cares? In fact Patton argued that the Western allies should have LET the Germans reach Paris or what ever, merely so the allied counterattack would bit off a bigger chunk of the German army.

The point isn't that the allies were brillent or made NO mistakes- the point is that wars are won at the strategic level, not the tactical... and that the side that makes the fewest significant blunders wins.

The North won the US civil war despite lossing most of the tactical battles, because it just had the raw strategic logistical strenght to be strong everywhere... sure the South won alot of tactical victories... but those victories only had operational and strategic significance if the North let them. Once Grant imposed a high tempo of operations on the South, combined with the closing of the missippi and the march to the sea; it did not matter how many tactical victories the south won... the North could replace its losses of men and equipment and the south couldn't feed its army much less find more men.

Strategy and logistics wins wars. Tactics don't. *

(*) true, a "twich" offensive, if directed at the enemy's center can win a war in a short period of time; but it generally doesn't work. Look at WWI and II :)

[Kitsune]

@Bittrich:

Had they had the foresight and predicted what Stalin would do then maybe. Even that would have been a stretch. After taking Czechoslovakia and invading Poland there would be no way for an American German alliance.

Have you ever thought why? The taking of Czechia (not Czechoslovakia) was hardly the most terrible crime ever. This region had been part of Germany/Austria for a thousand years, it was granted an state of autonomy that was more generous than the Czechs had given it to the Germans or Slovaks under their rule. Economically they even profitted from being part of the German customs region: their products found a ready market in Germany. Sure, it was still an expansionist act on the behalf of Germany...but the Poles did similiar to the Teschen region (the part of Czechia they grabbed) and no-one cared. Britain made Egypt a protectorate around that time (with military force, against the will of the population or the government, just what the Germans did to Czechs) and again no one cared.
And the Soviets? After WWII had started and the European nations were occupied they annexed Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in Autumn 1939...where is the difference (the only one I see is that the Baltic states did not profit economically in any way...)
Poland? Well, the Soviets, still using the occupation of the Western states, attacked Finland in Winter 1939/1940. Their attempt to conquer it succeeded only partially, but the intent was obvious. So, why could the USA be Allies of such a state, but not of Germany?
The reason is of course: Franklin D. Roosevelt. But it has nothing to do with morals or anything else. Take any crime of Nazi Germany and I show you one of the Soviet Union that is equal to it in magnitude or worse. That game works even AFTER the Holocaust...before it, there is simply no compare between those two. Take what you want: treatment of the own population, liberties granted, degree of mistreatment of minorities, degree of militarisation, degree of applied totalitarism...the Soviet Union wins hands down in all categories in a contest with Nazi Germany.
How could such a state be an ally? Only the selective awareness of FDR made that possible.


@Epaminondas:

what we are saying is that at the strategic level the allies made less mistakes then Germany did... and that most of the mistakes that the allies made were recoverable.

And I am saying that I am strongly disputing the first part of the sentence. The Allies, both the French-British-Polish Alliance, as well as the Soviets, made so many mistakes, on the strategic level as well, that Germany, had it made a comparable ammount, would have lost the war in no time. There would be no "Second World War" int he History book s in that case. The other part...that the Allies, all of them, were in a much stronger position, so their mistakes were "recoverable", is true.

And as far as the USA are concerned... sry to say that, but their part in bringing Germany down on the battlefield is immensly overestimated. Their decisive effort was to supply the Soviet Union...from 1942 onwards, the Soviet soldiers were largely fed, clothed and shoed by the Americans. Added to that, 2 of 3 transport vehicles that helped the Soviets to transport their soldiers from that time on were from America. But when the Americans entered the European battlefield in earnest (June 6th 1944), Germany was already on the verge to loose the war. The Americans fought against a mere third of the Wehrmacht, an army that had up to that time been exhausted in battles of a size US forces have never seen. And despite this, and a complete superitority in material (in contrast to the Germans they had been able to stockpile stuff for years) they still had their problems. Let's face it: One did not need to have a super-quality army or be a genius to have successes in that situation.

But their efforts WERE important, nonetheless. Not to defeat, Germany: only a complete changing sides of the USA could have saved the Reich in Summer 1944, and that would never have happened under the anti-german Roosevelt. They were important for the time AFTER the war. If the Americans had not been present, the Soviets would have taken all Germany, possibly even "liberated" France. That they did this with American supplies would not have changed the fact that they would not have left. Only American soldiers prevented Stalin from grabbing all of Europe, Britain was much to weak for that.
Not that Roosevelt planned this, he had opened the Yalta conference with the announcement that the USA would leave Europe within 18 months after Germany had been crushed. And he meant it. Luckily for the free world this, possibly most overestimated President of the USA, died (not a moment too soon) and made place for the probably most under-appreciated man ever to sit in the Oval Office. Coincidence or not, most of the wisest decisisions the USA ever made, the Berlin air support, the forgiving treatment of Germany, the Marshallplan (instead of burdening it with reparations as the French and British would have done), the encouragement of the German-French reconciliation, the founding of NATO...were made in the administration period of the completely unassuming Harry S. Truman. He also realized that Stalin is no friend and acted accordingly.
But what if Roosevelt had lived longer?

As far as the American Secession War is concerned, the situation is not so unsimiliar to WWII. The conflict was completely assymmetrical, the North was so much more potent. But the Southrons nearly made it...had Gettysburh been another victory of Lee's, we would see two Noth American states today. How was that possible? Certainly not because of any overwhelming brilliance on the part of the North. Had the South made such severe mistakes in the first one and a half years of the war, the Secession war would have entered the histroy books as a slightly oversized police-operation. No, the North did not play better than the South. He only had more chessmen.

[Reb]

Kitsune

"No, the North did not play better than the South. He only had more chessmen."

Now you're talkin'!

I agree whole heartedly about Roosevelt - we'd have to travel a long road to find a man who harmed his country (and perhaps Europe) as much as that bum.

I wonder how many died thanks to "unconditional surrender?"

cheers
Reb

[Bittrich]

Kitsune,

As I stated earlier a German-American alliance would not have been possible. Not because of Roosevelt but because the American public would not have tolerated an alliance with a WWI enemey. Also the alliance with France and Britain was too strong for America to turn their back on them.

As for your point about the Americans being overated toward the outcome of the war is valid up to a point, but then you point out how much material was being used by the Soviet Union from America. I do not believe the war was one by one ally or the other put the cooperation of Britain, America, and the Soviet Union. Yes America had a great industrial inferstructure, but had they not had lend-lease that much used equiptment would not have been there.

I don't mind that we disagree but you state that the American contribution was overrated and then state how much suppiles they gave to the Soviet Union. I do agree that the Soviet Union faced a majority of the Wehrmacht during the war, but had Germany been able to use all of its resources for the Soviet Union they probably could have forced a stalemate. They could not because of concerns toward their Western Front.

Even though the United States did not set foot on France till 1944, they were in Italy by 1943. Along with the British they fought in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy prior. So they were facing the Germans before June 6, 1944.

I appretiate your point of view even if we do not see eye to eye.

[Kitsune]

@Reb:

The assessment of Roosevelt gets even worse when one considers his role in the Poland crisis before. He seems to have applied pressure on Poland directly and over Britain and France indirectly that there is no negotiation with Germany. Also, it seems that he knew of the secret part of the Ribbentrop-Molotv pact, that divided up Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union, one day after it was signed. But he did not inform anyone, least of all the Poles.



@Bittrich

Correction:

I do believe that Americas contribution was vital for bringing down Germany. The economic support certainly was. Overrated is their contribution ON the battlefield (I said that, if you look closely), when they started their great offensive in summer 1944 (the part in Africa and Italy 1943 was a sideshow, just compare the committed German forces there to those at the Ostfront) Germany was already about to loose the war.
But still, the Western offensive WAS important, not to bring down Germany, but to keep the Soviets from "liberating" Western Europe as well. (But I think I said that as well.)

As far as your assessment of the attitude of the American population is concerned, that maybe right. But it's also very disappointing, considering that no real enmity was felt towards America from the German side. And that the Germans make up the largest single group among the white Americans. It still amazes me that anyone, but especially the USA would prefer the Soviets as allies. Now of course the Holocaust comes to behind...but that would start only AFTER the Americans had made their choice. Stalins purges and eradication programs came before, however.

As far as WWI is concerned: when I am feeling bitter about anything what America did, then it's their complete misbegotten intervention into WWI. Instead of American soldiers coming ashore in France 1917, exclaiming "Lafayette here we are!" they should have remembered von Steuben and stayed home.
Much evil would have been prevented.

[Reb]

Kitsune

"when I am feeling bitter about anything what America did, then it's their complete misbegotten intervention into WWI"

Absolutely the dumbest thing we ever did. The only possible reason we had for it was indeed our debt to France. But did we help France by creating Hitler? Hmmmm....

The British did no one any favors (including themselves) by conspiring with that idiot Wilson to get us into war.

cheers
Reb

[Freiritter]

Hello,

The problem about U.S. intervention in WWI was two things: 1, the money already invested in the British war effort and 2, the U-boat campaign in the North Atlantic. The OKL in 1917 gambled that Britain would be forced to the peace table before a sizable U.S. reaction/expeditionary force could make it's presence felt. The OKL knew that the U.S. would inevitably react to the deaths of U.S. citizens aboard Allied ships. Considering both economic and political reasons, an U.S. alliance with the British and the French was the most likely result after three years of war and the Zimmermann Telegram.

The thing a lot of people don't take into consideration, on both sides of the Atlantic, is the assimilation of immigrant populations into the American society. By the time of WWI, most German-Americans were here from 1848 on. So, by 1917, most German-Americans were Americans in loyalty. Same story with the Japanese-Americans in WWII.

As for the U.S./Soviet alliance in WWII, that I believe; was an alliance of convenience. In the 1930s, the Communists had a lot of influence in organized labor and the nation was wracked with labor strikes, farm unrest and great agitation to solve the Depression. Ripe conditions for rebellion, if Roosevelt hadn't acted the way he did. Also, the USSR was supposed to be exporting revolution as the avowed enemy of the capitalist system.

I would assume that U.S. foreign policy during the 1930s would be mainly anti-Soviet, to stave off a possibly Communist inspired domestic threat. I think there might have been a policy to support Hitler as a bulwark against Communism in Europe. So considering the state of U.S. domestic problems and the threat of international Communism at the time, a pre-war U.S./Soviet alliance would at best be unlikely.

Cordially,

Freiritter