Why the fascination with the German war machine? (armies, lineage, USA)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We had American soldiers come to our one room schoolhouse and show films about leather tanning and yes even basket weaving. After school one day a few of us boys saw a jeep stuck in the mud and ran over to help push it out. Another jeep came along and told us to stop they need time to set up a camera. After the camera was ready they told us to push again, the jeep was freed and I’m now part of the History Channel’s stock footage. I have seen this several times but never able to record it.
It must be on Youtube. Search for it and give us a link.
I am in my mid 20s and I have always had a fascination about military history but more importantly the 20th century and I have invested so much time in understanding and learning the axis side of the war becuase of the over saturation of the allies (seriously, I don't know everything down to everyone's exact experiences but I know the battles, key leaders, and everyone about equipment and vehicles) so therefore I learned about the other side and I am fascinated by it due to the advanced achievements of the Germans in every field. Should I feel bad I admire the technology used by the Germans and how skilled they were in battle aside from them being overwhelmed in every aspect of supplies and men and lack of leaders not having enough control, even though they also did terrible things?
Germans are alike the confederacy of the civil war. Given their resources capabilities manpower and technology they clearly over performed relative to expectations. Europe folded like a deck of cards. Even with a two front war had America not supported gb and ussr with equipment the entire Continental would be Deutschland.
Europe got fascinated by it in 1866 when Prussia defeated Austria in 6 week. Most European militaries thought Austria would win in a war of attrition. After that war, the Prussian system became the model for all modern militaries.
Maybe it carried over to WWII because it's the most recent war and the bloodiest. When I grew up most families had fathers that could tell kids stories of it. It wasn't an abstraction from a history book.
Germany felt it had to win wars quickly if it was going to win at all. I remember on one of those history shows a German woman saying we will win and win and win and win until we lose. And that's been the way of it.
Germany doesn't have the resources to win a long war and if it's fighting England it can't access foreign resources. So the German military system was geared to produce victory quickly instead of by grinding it out. And when it works it makes for spectacular results, which fascinate people.
There is a very good reason our modern army is based on German military doctrine backed by unlimited production.
It is very true that German military thinking has had an influence on modern strategy and tactics. However, I don't think one could go so far as to state that our modern army is based on German military doctrine. I think the one lasting contribution of Prussia/Germany to modern military thought has been professional officer corps who attend specialized schools and war colleges to refine their craft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluedevil12
I am in my mid 20s and I have always had a fascination about military history but more importantly the 20th century and I have invested so much time in understanding and learning the axis side of the war becuase of the over saturation of the allies (seriously, I don't know everything down to everyone's exact experiences but I know the battles, key leaders, and everyone about equipment and vehicles) so therefore I learned about the other side and I am fascinated by it due to the advanced achievements of the Germans in every field. Should I feel bad I admire the technology used by the Germans and how skilled they were in battle aside from them being overwhelmed in every aspect of supplies and men and lack of leaders not having enough control, even though they also did terrible things?
What are the "advanced achievements" of the Germans in "every field"? I think the more one studies the war, one comes to the realization that the Germans weren't actually all that advanced in terms of technology relative to the allies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWFL_Native
Germans are alike the confederacy of the civil war. Given their resources capabilities manpower and technology they clearly over performed relative to expectations. Europe folded like a deck of cards. Even with a two front war had America not supported gb and ussr with equipment the entire Continental would be Deutschland.
I would heavily argue the last sentence. Yes, Germany over-performed in the beginning. However, by 1941 when they ground to a halt outside of Moscow, the writing was on the wall, with or without US support. Most military historians and analysts view the US contribution as shortening the length of the war in Europe, but not being decisive in determining the outcome. The Soviets were going to win with or without us and it wasn't even until mid-1943, long after the Germans were being rolled back, that US supplies really started to impact the battlefield on the Eastern Front.
In think the Germans were a bit overrated.
Taking over Europe seems be a relatively easy task. The majority of the continent had lost appetites for war and had reduced their defense spending accordingly. Their first line of defense was appeasement, which once the German's called their bluff, taking over the entire continent was a cakewalk.
As far as their technology, I think it's what did them in. Tiger tanks, V1 and V2 rockets, and jets were impressive but expensive which is a negative attribute in a war of attrition.
They would have been better off with a more Soviet style mentality of cheap but easily mass produced weapons.
In think the Germans were a bit overrated.
Taking over Europe seems be a relatively easy task. The majority of the continent had lost appetites for war and had reduced their defense spending accordingly. Their first line of defense was appeasement, which once the German's called their bluff, taking over the entire continent was a cakewalk.
As far as their technology, I think it's what did them in. Tiger tanks, V1 and V2 rockets, and jets were impressive but expensive which is a negative attribute in a war of attrition.
They would have been better off with a more Soviet style mentality of cheap but easily mass produced weapons.
The more amateurish armchair historians tend to focus on things like armor thickness and armor piercing capability but totally ignore boring but critical attributes like reliability, cost and fuel efficiency. Hans Guderian himself wanted to mass produce up-gunned Panzer IVs instead of investing in luxury models like Panthers and Tigers. Nazi Germany produced almost the same amount of steel as the Soviet Union but made only a fraction of the armored vehicles. If they had gone with a cheaper but more numerous model then their edge in training would likely have made a real difference on the Eastern Front.
Taking over Europe seems be a relatively easy task. The majority of the continent had lost appetites for war and had reduced their defense spending accordingly.
I will have to disagree with you there. France's military spending was close to profligate, and they increased the conscription duration from 1 to 2 years as early as 1935, due to Germany re-emerging as a threat. (The WWI losses had lowered the birthrate.)
They spent their money and the time of their staff officers badly, though: They looked at World War 1 and drew the wrong conclusions about static defense vs. mobile offense.
Easy to blame them now, but with trench warfare vivid in their memory, the idea that a robust defense would be a match for pretty much any attack must have been an easy conclusion. Trenches had been mostly improvised - imagine what a pre-constructed defense work could do. And the idea was an attractive one, too - "Lavish with steel, stingy with blood" must have sounded pretty good to a country that had been drained white during 1914-1918.
On the other side, the inventive minds in the Wehrmacht embraced the armor warfare ideas of Guderian. People like de Gaulle and Liddell Hart tried much the same in France and the UK, respectively, but were considered eccentric.
France wasn't outspent, she was out-doctrined and out-generaled.
Quote:
They would have been better off with a more Soviet style mentality of cheap but easily mass produced weapons.
Weapons, schmeapons - they should have started with trucks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.