Reply With QuoteIndeed, the Germans only took about 2/3 of Poland. Hitler handed the rest to Stalin. The Red Army took far fewer casualties than the Germans because the vast majority of the Polish Army was engaged in the west.Originally Posted by BLUE THOR
Poles did fight hard - on both Fronts... people seem to forget there were two Fronts Poland had to fight on in 1939
Indeed, the Germans only took about 2/3 of Poland. Hitler handed the rest to Stalin. The Red Army took far fewer casualties than the Germans because the vast majority of the Polish Army was engaged in the west.
I didnt claim otherwise did i? I said it shouldnt be an easy task to invade a big country like Poland.
I was actually supporting your post with historical fact. Relax. I don't know why you're upset with me for agreeing with you.
I wonder why a lot of people are more fascinated in studying the German military during WW2 as compared to the militaries of other nations. Certainly, they were military geniuses, but ultimately they lost. I mean usually, people study the victors, but not in this case...
One country against rest of the world is more fascinating then the other way around(German allies are being skipped altogether).
IIRC the fighting in Poland was done almost totally on the western front. The Soviet invasion was only decisive in the fact that it prevented the Poles to reorganize a solid front against the German advance.
Good points all around.
My summary:
- Wehrmacht started the war with gear that was far from superior
- German numerical superiority in 1939-40 was either non-existent or highly exaggerated in post-war reporting
- What made the difference in 1939-40 was strategy and tactics, in other words people, not hardware
- Mordoror is right to point out that Versailles forced ze Zermans to think outside of the traditional box. The limits on personnel ensured that a significant portion of the German military leaders that emerged were superb
- Luftwaffe suffered severe losses during the French campaign. As they were victorious, this fact has been widely forgotten
Yes, don't forget that a lot of the immediate post-war writings on this period were done by the British and French generals who had been so comprehensively defeated. Saying "we were defeated because the enemy had vastly more and better tanks and aircraft" sounds a lot better than "we were out thought and out fought" in the memoirs.
Precisely.
It is quite surprising to see what the German generals were able to accomplish when you realize what they actually had.
That's also a legend the same way you can hear sometimes that UK was alone in the fight from 1940 to 1941 (whereas the whole Empire was behind it)
Germany was not alone :it had allies (Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Finland) and satellite regimes all around as well as "quisling" units from whole Europe (including neutral states like Spain). It sucked also all the european economy in its war machine and could'nt have achieved its initial successes (up to 43-mid 44) without manpower/monney/industrial grid ans ressources from France, Sweden , Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland etc etc moreover because German economy entred lately in a all out war economy (mid 43 or early 43 i don't rememver exactly)
example : Pz35 and Pz38 both design from Czech origin and produced in Czech factories were a consequent part of the PzDiv during the battle of France and the first 6 months of Barbarossa. The same could be said for some trucks, guns, engines (from Praga), spare parts etc
After the invasion of France a consequent part of artillery and AT guns of french building were used by the Whermacht for Balkans and Russian campaign
And i could go on with more examples
But being a loser (in the case of Germany) or a winner (in the case of UK) it is always more convenient to say that what was achieved was achieved alone
You have also to take in account that it was a dismissal of their responsabilities and a way to point the finger to the civilian authorities while those generals were the guilty for the defeat. Thats particularly pregnant concerning the French for several reasons : a bunch of them disliked the ante-war republic a bit too socialist for their taste. It was then convenient and easy to say that lack of modern bombers or radios or AtK guns was the fault of the civilian authorities; The fact is that the rearming of the French forces was launched in 1936 under that left gov. Too few, too late but the action was here.
It is also the continuity of the Riom trial done by Vichy in order to white wash the military (and charge a bit more the despised leftist and civies)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riom_Trial
That's why war and immediately post war sources should be regarded suspiciously when you read abou the achievemnt of one or another side.
Unfortunately these sources are still references and used as such in some case and have set up the basis of modern historiography even if they are biased from the beginning
Example : you'll read that the Campaign of France was an holiday travel for the Germans
When the lossed of the Whermacht and Luftwaffe were of about 1200 tanks and 1200 planes for 5 weeks of fighting
^Germanies allies are nearly never mentioned in most of cheap documentation about WW2 in TV. Italy is sometimes mentioned, but east European countries are usually forgotten altogether. So it does looks like as if Germany did do everything alone to people who only watch tv.
In alot of ways, it reminds me of the US Training Doctrine which was/is utilized in the training of say ANA/Iraqi Army Personel, in that the logic being it is far better to train an Army via its leadership rather than simply from the ground up.... The core of professionals was able to rapidly expand the German Wehrmacht and provide expertise, experience to the new formations they then took over allowing for the German Army to expand throughout the war and still maintain some quality even as the War started reducing the training times alloted.... its noteworthy that one of the most devastating aspects of Bagration in '44 was the destruction not only of many German Formations, but the loss of countless seasoned NCOs who often being older were less able to break out or endure, but the loss of whom meant the loss of much expertise and experience..
The other advantage I would say Germany had which I guess has been slightly touched upon, is that not only did the Germans entrust decisions lower down the chain of Command, but it tied into a Mission Based Planning mentality (I cannot think of the actual terms I am trying to reference), where upon Commanders in German Formations would state what Objectives they wish to accomplish and leave the specifics of how it is done to the initiative of the Subordinates, with a high level of professionalism in those Subbordinates they now had the freedom to react intuitively and rapidly to changing battlefield circumstances and opportunities, given them a higher initiative rate that in many ways they maintained to certain degrees over their opponents..
While this is true, I guess argueably you could state there was a difference in 'dedication' in terms of Allies....
German Allies whilst quite willing in ways to begin with, rapidly became unreliable both in support of the war and in capabilities... This is not to say they were poor soldiers (Italian Artillery Troops I believe for example were highly regarded), but that they lacked both equipment, leadership and argueably the fervor of their German counterparts.. By Contrast British Allies Eg: Commonwealth were pretty willing fighters, with many being used at critical points and fighting with strong resolve and on a much more I would argue similar level of quality to British Formations...
The same again becomes true of Industry, while Germany did utilize factories and resources from occupied lands it did so at the muzzle point in many ways and particulary as the war went on sabotage crept in increasingly...
I think in ways it is thus argueably *semi* reasonable to imagine why the view of the Germans fighting alone came about, as none of their allies really had the investment as an entire nation in prosecuting the war that Germany held... That said I agree entirely that it did not simply fight alone..
~~~~~
Weaknesses I would say held by Germany at the start of the war were as many have pointed out,
-Inferior Armor on many AFVs
-Lack of mobility that Motorization provides (that said it can work in other ways as people pointed out)
-Lack of long range aviation, the Luftwaffe was a tactical air force built to complement the Heer, a role in which it excelled. Once the BoB occured it lost the backup of ground assets which were meant to seize the ground the Luftwaffe had cleared of enemy fighters.. It lacked subsequently longer range fighters (ignoring Bf-110 which was not successful in a daylight role), it lacked Bombers of sufficient heavy capacity of defensive armanent for strategic level bombing).... This all became clear by the Battle of Britain (And subsequently gave rise to what I believe is a slightly exagerated notion that the Ju-87 was completely outdated based upon its performance in that air campaign)
-Lack of Pharmaceuticals, I am not the best educated in this but I believe Germany was lacking some very basic medical resources which if I recall correctly could have saved countless lives throughout the war (Someone else might be able to elaborate on this?)
-Unpreparedness, Germany as a whole was NOT ready for the war when it began in the west imho, its navy had nowhere near completed its rebuild and thus was limited in capability, its Army was forced to utilize Tanks such as the Pz I and Pz II much more than they should have, the Pz I actually being a training tank....
Lastly I would say that while many critique the Pz III, IV in being inferior to the French and British Tanks, they did prove themselves to actually be not only reliable (not meaning mechanically)and affordable, but very adaptable machines that throughout the war found roles through which they excelled...
They hadn't single use dressings (only cloth ones that had to be washed and recycled), none of this powder the ,name escapes me, the US corpsmen applied directly to wounds. No penicillin. Extreme lack or non-existence of blood conserves. If someone needed blood a transfusion man to man had to be made.
Posting Permissions
