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.
There were 4 major parties to WW2; Germany, Japan, US and Russia. Of the 3, Germany commands the lion share of interest with regards to weapons, planes, rockets, ships, subs tanks etc. If you browse the news stands you see cover story after cover story about German hardware as well as military tactics. The US side gets some coverage as do the Russians but virtually nothing Japanese. Can't think of a single Japanese light arm that impressed anybody. It is not explicit but you sense a certain admiration for the German military from the leadership on down even when they end up on the losing side of battles. For example, WW2 memorabilia is predominantly German.
I must confess I don't know how they lasted as long as they did. Here we are in a country of 320 some million with the most fearsome firepower ever but we are told we are tapped out after invading two dusty medieval countries with no military to speak of whose most advanced weapons were home made explosives put together on kitchen tables, and we still lost. What was Germany's population at the time and how could they man and supply their war effort at 4 corners of the world for 6 years? What kind of social fabric does it require to sustain such an effort?
You're comparing apples to oranges. During WW2 the United States was around 160 million in population, and had 16 million people in the armed forces. That's 10% of our total population. Today, out of 320 million population, we have less than a million people under arms.... way different in terms of boots on the ground to get the job done. During WW2 I would imagine the major players would have similar percentages of population to military numbers, maybe even higher for the Soviet Union.
The explanation is cultural. There is something about Germany, and particularly Nazi Germany, that to the ignorant bespeaks pomp and grandeur, a well-oiled machine relentlessly mowing down everything in its path. The elegantly tailored uniforms, the ingenious military tactics, the finely crafted weapons… it all feels like superlatives, Mercedes and BMW and Krupp and IG-Farben all seamlessly marshaled together into one smashingly glorious Leviathan. No group of genocidal maniacs has ever achieved this level of prestige. Others might be lauded for their military discipline, relentless determination, fanatical courage, or any other pugilistic values. Many marauders, despots and villains have been turned by admiring revisionist eyes into noble warriors. But the Nazis stand alone as being viewed in excelling in so many aspects of modern sophistication and elegance, turned to, uh, shall we say somewhat unsavory ends. And perhaps the more unsavory, the more haunting and therefore intriguing. Nobody is really interested in counterfactual scenarios, of what would have happened if Imperial Japan never attacked the US and instead won a contained war in the Pacific. And there's only limited interest in what might have happened if the Romans were defeated in their battles with the Carthage, if Mongols overran Western Europe in the Middle Ages, if the Crusaders defeated Saladin, and so forth. But what if the Nazis won, or what could they have done differently to have won? Now that's an incessant topic of debate.
Also because valiant losers always get some fascination: unconsciously we tend to admire those who fought valiantly (excluding all war crimes and similar issues) but lost.
Look at Japanese: Banzai charges were insane,useless and stupid but they showed an almost unbelievable (and suicidal) courage which impressed everybody.
In those few words, I think alias captured the reason for the fascination of German armament.
The Nazis, no matter what one thinks of them, were sharp dressers, and their weaponry was sleek and deadly. The other thing about the Germans is they intentionally promoted a look of polished steel and ultra-modern design.
The Japanese army didn't have the same sharp look, even though it was more functionally dressed for combat in the tropics.
The Russians were even more functional and purpose driven. Their tanks were the best in the war, but they were put into combat looking rough and unpolished, crudely made, but very well designed for their purpose. Their soldiers were the same. They lacked the spit and polish of the German troops, but were dressed for function and survivability, and ramshackle looking as they were, they still walked over the bodies of their better dressed foes.
While the differences were very apparent in the land war, the sea war was much different. The Japanese navy had very sleek and powerful ships, and their crews were sharper dressed than most of our own. Our naval officers were much more tolerant in their crew's dress, and as long as the ship was in top notch condition for doing it's purpose, looks very often took a distant second place to combat readiness.
The Soviet fleet and the British fleet were both more handsome than ours, but our fleet was a lot more like the Russian tanks- sometimes crude in comparison, but were more advanced where it counted- in combat.
All participants made some very good looking aircraft. But fighting aircraft are always function first, and their function demanded nice looking form.
Much of our fascination with the Germans is due to their own propaganda. They intentionally tried very hard to look invincible, but the fact was, even at it's best, the German army still depended on horse drawn wagons and carts for most of their supply during the blitzkrieg. They weren't nearly as modern as they made themselves out to be.
The German high command considered our army as a bunch of badly dressed slobs in baggy pants until they had to confront us. And, in terms of appearance alone, they were right. Our army in the first world war went into battle in the same uniform they used in full dress parades.
Our commanders learned the combat deficiencies of that, and between the wars developed a much better combat uniform that was all purpose and no regard for handsomeness at all. That our officers were most often dressed just like their troops was bewildering to the Germans at first.
The Russians were even more functional and purpose driven. Their tanks were the best in the war, but they were put into combat looking rough and unpolished, crudely made, but very well designed for their purpose. Their soldiers were the same. They lacked the spit and polish of the German troops, but were dressed for function and survivability, and ramshackle looking as they were, they still walked over the bodies of their better dressed foes.
There is also that Cold War thing that until only the last 30 years down played the Russian role in the war. Plus, all those erudite British actor playing Germans in the movies.
James Mason, Alec Guiness, Anthony Hopkins, Christopher Lee, Christopher Plummer, Malcolm McDowell...Peter O'Toole.
Wow, can't even find a similar list of actors who played the role of Japanese officers.
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.