Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 28th, 2014, 01:54 PM   #51

zincwarrior's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 4,896

Quote:
Originally Posted by attila006 View Post
Why does America's number threat have to be a nation? Why can't it be an ideology shared by no specific nation state actor?
If you go by deaths, our number one threat is the military colossus that is the cheeseburger.

Besides, falling oil prices just did the equivalent of a European level bombing campaign to their economy over the last month.

Last edited by zincwarrior; October 28th, 2014 at 01:58 PM.
zincwarrior is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 28th, 2014, 02:14 PM   #52

Underlankers's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 6,722

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
Considering what the Russians did to the people they conquered, I can't say I have a lot of sympathy;
And I take it that you're just fine then with what the Germans did to the people they conquered? Using one million French as slave laborers, exterminating European Jews by the tens and hundreds of thousands, and a chain of barbarian massacres from 1940-5 is just fine with you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
in truth, I wish the Germans had gotten more of them after all they were and remain to this very day our greatest enemy.
Only in the eyes of people who were bedazzled by Bolshevism's rhetoric and missed that in most ways the USSR was a revival of ancient Muscovite messianicism with modern technology in practice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
I also don't have a lot of sympathy for the Germans with respect to how they were treated by the Russians. But that's an issue between Russia and Germany that doesn't concern us.
There, too, you are wrong. Once the Soviet Union was involved in the war, there was no moral rightness whether they were Hitler's ally or our own at the time. There was only murkiness and squalor on a set of degrees.

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
Even American POW's who the Germans considered 'untermensch' received acceptable treatment. Blacks were segregated in POW camps, but that was as much as the insistence of the white US soldiers as the Luftwaffe guards, and there were a few cases of mistreatment of Jewish-American POW's, but most made it through the war without incident and we got our pound of flesh.
More like an ounce, if that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
Even if all is lost, a self respecting army will fight on to the bitter end, that quality is to be admired, not criticized.
And yet you don't admire it in the Japanese. Why is that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
I think it would have been in their interests to focus their offensives on the east and not the west, the Russians were far less forgiving than we Americans, but the German people paid dearly for that miscalculation. Had the US crossed into Germany before 1945 and the the Russian offensive been stalled we might not have given the Russians such generous concessions at Yalta, we might have been able to take all of Germany and leave the communists out in the cold. The Battle of the Bulge screwed everybody except the evil empire, but it was still a legitimate military operation.
If the US Army had been able to do that, the whole war would have been a completely different situation earlier on, and the need to shore up the West benefits the USSR more than the West.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warehouse View Post
I'm interested in why you think so little of the WWII German army. I don't see how they didn't perform well. In Overlord despite huge numerical superiority the Allies were frustrated at every turn by stiff German resistance. They were helped greatly by mistakes on their enemies part, but they still ruled Europe for a time.

I do agree they are often overrated though.
I think very little of them because I'm convinced that they were a poor army reliant heavily on bluffs and fakery that managed to win a slew of rapid victories against poorly-led armies and fell apart when they met a tenacious army that didn't fall over dead from a single shattering blow.
Underlankers is offline  
Old October 28th, 2014, 02:31 PM   #53

Warehouse's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: South Carolina, USA
Posts: 527

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers View Post
I think very little of them because I'm convinced that they were a poor army reliant heavily on bluffs and fakery that managed to win a slew of rapid victories against poorly-led armies and fell apart when they met a tenacious army that didn't fall over dead from a single shattering blow.
Sorry if I might be juggling you between two separate debates here, but I'd like to hear a little more. As I said before they are often overrated as some kind of superman army, but I believe they still showed themselves to be an extremely professional force. How do you explain their stiff resistance against overwhelming force in Normandy, Monte Cassino, or Berlin for example?
Warehouse is offline  
Old October 28th, 2014, 02:43 PM   #54
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 8,545

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers View Post
And I take it that you're just fine then with what the Germans did to the people they conquered? Using one million French as slave laborers, exterminating European Jews by the tens and hundreds of thousands, and a chain of barbarian massacres from 1940-5 is just fine with you?

Only in the eyes of people who were bedazzled by Bolshevism's rhetoric and missed that in most ways the USSR was a revival of ancient Muscovite messianicism with modern technology in practice.

There, too, you are wrong. Once the Soviet Union was involved in the war, there was no moral rightness whether they were Hitler's ally or our own at the time. There was only murkiness and squalor on a set of degrees.

More like an ounce, if that.
Moral righteousness is irrelevant, strategic positioning is all that matters. More dead Russians meant a better strategic position for the west, the calculation is as simple as that. War is never about some great struggle between good and evil, that's just the propaganda that goes along with war. War is about imposing our interests and undermining our enemy's interests by violent means. It doesn't matter if you're the good guy or the bad guy, it only matters what you win or lose and at what cost, it's an economic problem not a moral one.

Quote:
And yet you don't admire it in the Japanese. Why is that?
I do, actually, and have upset many of our Chinese forum members by supporting them. In fact, though throughout history I probably have greater admiration for the German people, since 1945 I have far greater admiration for the Japanese, they never adopted that defeatist attitude Germany did, despite taking extraordinarily heavy loses and being bombed and starved to the verge of annihilation by us, they got right back up on their feet, rebuilt their economy with far less help than the Europeans had and soon surpassed Europe in every measure. They have proven themselves a great martial race deserving of our respect and we are lucky to count them as friends.

Doesn't mean I don't think they should have been punished for what they did to our POW's or for Pearl Harbor which was dishonourable in their culture as well as ours. When they were our enemy we had every right to treat them as our enemy and heap whatever destruction we could upon them until they broke. I'm very proud of the manner in which the US conducted the war in the pacific, but I'm equally proud of the good grace and chivalry we showed towards our vanquished foe.

When the war is over and your enemy is subdued under your foot and utterly at your mercy, it's time for the hatred to stop. You have to be sporting, you don't kick a man when he's down, you give him a slap on the back and wish him better luck next time.

We haven't vanquished the Russians and subsumed them to our interests and our control, so the time for hatred has not yet come to an end. They are a great people and an admirable foe, but we have not yet subdued them so we can't let them know that.

Quote:
I think very little of them because I'm convinced that they were a poor army reliant heavily on bluffs and fakery that managed to win a slew of rapid victories against poorly-led armies and fell apart when they met a tenacious army that didn't fall over dead from a single shattering blow.
They were probably the greatest army of their time with weapons, training, and tactics second to none. But you're right, they were only good for a quick and rapid victory. But that's not because of the quality of their army, it's because of the quality of their logistics, which were absolutely horrible. They didn't have the fuel for large numbers of trucks and rail transportation is inherently vulnerable since it's relatively easy to predict. At the end of the war the Germans were still relying on horse drawn carts for military supply, an army like that, no matter how well armed, well trained, and even well lead (at least at the tactical level) is useless.

The only reason they did as well as they did in Russia was because Soviet logistics were even worse than German ones, they were still heavily relying on local requisitions to supply their army. Their supply lines within their own country were in an even worse state than the German ones, it wasn't until the Germans were at the gates of Moscow and Stalingrad that Russia's supply lines had shortened enough that they could actually provide their army with the means to fight. They would never have been able to push the Germans completely out of Russia and the war would have probably ended in a stalemate somewhere near the Russian frontiers without allied assistance, both in terms of interdicting German supply through strategic bombing and direct resupply of the Red Army through lend lease.
constantine is offline  
Old October 28th, 2014, 02:47 PM   #55
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Texas, USA
Posts: 3,909

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior View Post
If you go by deaths, our number one threat is the military colossus that is the cheeseburger.

Besides, falling oil prices just did the equivalent of a European level bombing campaign to their economy over the last month.
Exactly. Let's be realistic in who our real enemies on, based on the real level of harm they actually pose to the US and its interests.
attila006 is offline  
Old October 28th, 2014, 02:48 PM   #56

Futurist's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2014
From: SoCal
Posts: 11,187
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers View Post
I think very little of them because I'm convinced that they were a poor army reliant heavily on bluffs and fakery that managed to win a slew of rapid victories against poorly-led armies and fell apart when they met a tenacious army that didn't fall over dead from a single shattering blow.
And this is not to mention the fact that the Germans (in both WWI and in WWII) relied on plans (the Schlieffen Plan, the Manstein Plan, Operation Barbarossa, et cetera) which required that the enemy sufficiently play along with its own demise in order for Germany to defeat them.
Futurist is offline  
Old October 28th, 2014, 02:54 PM   #57

Futurist's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2014
From: SoCal
Posts: 11,187
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
1. Even if all is lost, a self respecting army will fight on to the bitter end, that quality is to be admired, not criticized.

2. I think it would have been in their interests to focus their offensives on the east and not the west, the Russians were far less forgiving than we Americans, but the German people paid dearly for that miscalculation. Had the US crossed into Germany before 1945 and the the Russian offensive been stalled we might not have given the Russians such generous concessions at Yalta, we might have been able to take all of Germany and leave the communists out in the cold. The Battle of the Bulge screwed everybody except the evil empire, but it was still a legitimate military operation.
1. This was because Hitler was still in charge of Germany at this point in time, though; had, say, the July 20th plotters completely succeeded, then they might have very well surrendered months sooner.

On the bright side, though, Germany fighting on to the bitter end did guarantee that there would not be a Stab-in-the-Back Version 2.0 after the end of World War II.

2. Interestingly enough, in the long(er)-run, it (ironically) would have been even more in the Germans' interests not to adopt the Manstein Plan in 1940. That way, they might have lost WWII with less (perhaps much less) casualties and with the Soviet Union in control of few, if any, areas of Germany at the time that World War II ends in this scenario.

Of course, an even better move in the Germans' interests might have been not to start World War II in the first place.
Futurist is offline  
Old October 31st, 2014, 11:44 AM   #58

Underlankers's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 6,722

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warehouse View Post
Sorry if I might be juggling you between two separate debates here, but I'd like to hear a little more. As I said before they are often overrated as some kind of superman army, but I believe they still showed themselves to be an extremely professional force. How do you explain their stiff resistance against overwhelming force in Normandy, Monte Cassino, or Berlin for example?
First of all, in the first and in the last case they didn't resist effectively, they flat-out failed. Their only reason for enduring in both cases were the decisions of their enemies to make poorly-directed frontal attacks into the teeth of prepared defensive positions. In the case of Monte Cassino, that's a bit more complicated but the short answer is "Blame Churchill and his idiotic Anzio concept that didn't do anything except remove a strong force from where it actually would have done some good for the first two battles."

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
Moral righteousness is irrelevant, strategic positioning is all that matters.
In that case why complain about Stalin? His strategic rationale was far superior to Hitler's and the idea of damn morality and honor strategic thinkers would make him the true visionary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
More dead Russians meant a better strategic position for the west, the calculation is as simple as that.
Not sure how that follows when very little of WWII was actually fought on Great Russia proper and much more of it was fought in Belarus or Ukraine, but OK, let's go with this. How does boosting a death toll in Russia help the West? Germany's barbarians were still looting and strip-mining the rest of Europe and wrecking its economies in that case, what benefit was there to the West in Nazi kleptocrats vampirically draining Europe of its strength? Or is rule of thievery acceptable when it's done by Germans in the name of the Volksgemeinschaft?

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
War is never about some great struggle between good and evil, that's just the propaganda that goes along with war. War is about imposing our interests and undermining our enemy's interests by violent means. It doesn't matter if you're the good guy or the bad guy, it only matters what you win or lose and at what cost, it's an economic problem not a moral one.
So what difference was there between Soviets and Nazis as far as their looting anything not bolted down and unscrewing that which was and then stealing that, too? Why treat one gang of crooks and thieves and rapists as superior to another gang?

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
I do, actually, and have upset many of our Chinese forum members by supporting them. In fact, though throughout history I probably have greater admiration for the German people, since 1945 I have far greater admiration for the Japanese, they never adopted that defeatist attitude Germany did, despite taking extraordinarily heavy loses and being bombed and starved to the verge of annihilation by us, they got right back up on their feet, rebuilt their economy with far less help than the Europeans had and soon surpassed Europe in every measure. They have proven themselves a great martial race deserving of our respect and we are lucky to count them as friends.
OK, so that bit is consistent.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
Doesn't mean I don't think they should have been punished for what they did to our POW's or for Pearl Harbor which was dishonourable in their culture as well as ours. When they were our enemy we had every right to treat them as our enemy and heap whatever destruction we could upon them until they broke. I'm very proud of the manner in which the US conducted the war in the pacific, but I'm equally proud of the good grace and chivalry we showed towards our vanquished foe.

When the war is over and your enemy is subdued under your foot and utterly at your mercy, it's time for the hatred to stop. You have to be sporting, you don't kick a man when he's down, you give him a slap on the back and wish him better luck next time.
"Morality is irrelevant, only strategic positioning matters" was the precise logic behind what they were doing to our POWs, so why do you care about it? They're just taking that idea to its horrible starvation-inducing conclusion. Makes them good candidates for Sith Lords, terrible human beings, and guaranteed to lose a war strategically no matter what they do tactically but that's not the way you're looking at it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
We haven't vanquished the Russians and subsumed them to our interests and our control, so the time for hatred has not yet come to an end. They are a great people and an admirable foe, but we have not yet subdued them so we can't let them know that.
And odds are so long as you keep that myopic military focus it's never going to happen, either. Russia is very big, occupying it requires a force too large and expensive for modern warfare.


Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
They were probably the greatest army of their time with weapons, training, and tactics second to none.
An army that can punch once well is not anything like the greatest army ever, it's a lethal joke force that can and will rip through a badly commanded hollow army but runs into problems against a badly commanded army of suicidal ideologically indoctrinated soldiers who are quite happy to run through minefields so as not to get the NKVD bullet in the brain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
But you're right, they were only good for a quick and rapid victory. But that's not because of the quality of their army, it's because of the quality of their logistics, which were absolutely horrible. They didn't have the fuel for large numbers of trucks and rail transportation is inherently vulnerable since it's relatively easy to predict. At the end of the war the Germans were still relying on horse drawn carts for military supply, an army like that, no matter how well armed, well trained, and even well lead (at least at the tactical level) is useless.

The only reason they did as well as they did in Russia was because Soviet logistics were even worse than German ones, they were still heavily relying on local requisitions to supply their army. Their supply lines within their own country were in an even worse state than the German ones, it wasn't until the Germans were at the gates of Moscow and Stalingrad that Russia's supply lines had shortened enough that they could actually provide their army with the means to fight. They would never have been able to push the Germans completely out of Russia and the war would have probably ended in a stalemate somewhere near the Russian frontiers without allied assistance, both in terms of interdicting German supply through strategic bombing and direct resupply of the Red Army through lend lease.
Germany's failure to think logistically or strategically applied since the Waldersee era. It was the prime defect in the German way of war, and is why Germans are the world's greatest masters of the memoir strategy, but pitiful at winning campaigns, let alone wars, in actual combat situations.
Underlankers is offline  
Old November 1st, 2014, 11:38 AM   #59

deaf tuner's Avatar
hier is da feestje !!!
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: Europe
Posts: 10,546
Blog Entries: 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
Moral righteousness is irrelevant, strategic positioning is all that matters. More dead Russians meant a better strategic position for the west, the calculation is as simple as that [.....]
[.....]
We haven't vanquished the Russians and subsumed them to our interests and our control, so the time for hatred has not yet come to an end. They are a great people and an admirable foe, but we have not yet subdued them so we can't let them know that.
[.....]
(and a looooong list of other like that, no need to charge the forum by quoting)

it's not the first time (and suppose it's not the last time) I have this question turning in my mind: how much does SVR RF / СВР РФ is paying for (well written) posts like that ?

cause I can't imagine more effective anti-american propaganda that these kind of posts
deaf tuner is offline  
Old November 1st, 2014, 12:51 PM   #60

Zhang LaoYong's Avatar
A stray cat.
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: On the prowl.
Posts: 5,121

OK, after that craziness that went on for a few pages. . .

The thing I heard about a connection with the Army and the Wehrmacht was in our NCO and officer's schools. I haven't checked this out, but when I was an NCO I was told we got the schools from the Wehrmacht, going back to the Prussian system of educating their leaders.

Does anyone who has studied this know if it is true or not? Did we get the idea for NCO development schools, any officer schools (like the War College maybe) from the Wehrmacht?
Zhang LaoYong is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
complex, idolize, kasserine, military, wehrmacht



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Complex non-literate societies unity General History 16 November 8th, 2013 03:48 AM
Temple Complex of Tarxien Brisieis Ancient History 9 August 20th, 2012 02:31 AM
Complex Assassinations In History bbooze General History 10 June 15th, 2012 10:01 AM
Military-Industrial Complex rehabnonono American History 35 May 31st, 2010 12:30 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.