Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Commander - Europe at War Gold >> Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 5/26/2009 7:21:28 PM

miral

Posts: 170
Joined: 12/20/2007
Status: offline

Put this on a new thread because it has been so long since I replied to the original. Sorry, but don't have regular access to internet. Yes, the use of the word Idiots is partly to get the thread read. But only partly.

Thre replies were interesting and written by people obviously knowlegeable about WWII and the German army. But what was most interesting about those that objected to my thesis and defended the German generals was that they are promoting an argument long discredited by German historians, particularly contemporary ones. The finest work is German and the Second World War, by a collection of scholars at the Potsdam Institute for the Study of Military History, with 10 vols out and one more to come. These include the finest of Germany's military historians. They completely demolish the myths that Hitler was mostly to blame for the strategic debacles of the War. This was a self-serving myth made up after the war by the German generals both to preserve their military reputations and to pretend that they had had nothing to do with the atrocities of the war. For instance, not one high German general objected to the invasion of Russia; they all assumed it would be a cake walk, just like Hitler. And almost every high general of the War was implicated in atrocies, even the great reverenced von Manstein (see his proclamation of his troops in, I believe 1942, in which he writes of the righteous war they are waging against the 'scum of Judaism'.

Also, let us be clear about what Grand Strategy is. It is not battles, and it is not even whether to go for Moscow or divert to win a big operational victory in the Ukraine. It means integrating military, diplomatic, industrial and scientific resources more efficiently than your enemy. The Germans simply had no grand strategy. Germany and the Second World War goes into enormous detail in the German organization of these elements and presents a damning picture of incoherence and incompetence. And again, they blame not just Hitler, but a specifically German way of approaching war.

In military strategy, that level below grand strategy, the Germans were also failures. As Citino and the Potsdam scholars point out, the prime German error was a constant failure to match resources to ends, and a constant underestimation amounting to arrogance, of their Russian opponents. And these were endemic among the operational geniuses of the Army, not just Hitler.

And I am accused of being anti-German. Damned right I am anti-German, if you are speaking of the Germany of WWII. As copius scholarship has now shown the majority of the German people (see Hitler's Willing Executioners) and army (again see the huge amount of documentation in Germany and the Second World War), regular as well as SS, fully supported Hitler's mass murder, colluded in it, and regreted nothing except that they lost. Let's get this straight; the Germans weren't victims, too. They were murderous monsters who got far less than they deserved in retribution.

A couple of notes on specific operations mentioned. Tuchman is not an authoritative source for the Schliefen Plan; she was not a military historian and her book is now pretty old. And Moscow, oh yes Moscow. If Hitler had only listened to his brilliant generals and gone for Moscow the Soviet Union would have collapsed. To the german generals Russian collapse was always just around the corner.
Please read Supplying War by Martin van Creveld. In it he points that, at the start of the invasion of France in WWI, the German army was not capable of supplying itself as far as Paris. The Plan had no chance of ever succeeding. See his chapter on Russia in WWII as well as the vastly detailed examination of logistics in German and the Second World War. Before Barbarrosa was launched the Quartermasters Office of the German Army told the combat generals that they could supply the Army tolerably well to the line of the Dnepr, but not beyond. This is precisely what happened. After the Dnepr German supply constantly came near complete collapse. As Citino, in WWII the German officers did not even use the word logistics; they called it Supply, just like in Napoleon or Fredericks time. It is not as glamorous as great operational manuevers using many panzer divisions but the Germans might have spent more time figuring out how to get fuel up to the panzers instead of thinking that there was an operational answer to every problem.

And there was the Germans problem, Guderian and Manstein and Kleist and all the other geniuses; they thought there were operational answers to every problem, even strategic. It is too easy and just not true to blame Hitler for all that went wrong and extol the generals as virtuosos who did little wrong. The German generals were masters of operational and tactical warfare but, like those of WWI, their view of war and the world was far too limited, and therein lay their downfall.

As far as Franz Halder was concerned; he was a total bastard and a war criminal who should have been hung (see German and the Second World War for a devasting critique of Halder). Instead, shamefully, our government hired him to write lying histories glorifying himself and even gave him an award for his valuable contributions! Halder knew what evil was going on and had no qualms about it. Like al the other high generals, he knew. It was impossible to be a general in the Wehrmact and not know genocide was being comitted.

Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome. This accurated defines the German Generals and their efforts in WWII.

Post #: 1

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 5/27/2009 4:31:16 AM

sapper_astro

Posts: 300
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline

I disagree.

As soon as I read "the Germans could not have supplied themselves to Paris" I must admit that it has discredited your sources. Bazain would wish things were the way you stated, he really would have.

And as for your entire thesis, I am guessing that if the German Generals were this hopeless, I shudder to think what kind of words could be used on the poor old Allied and Soviet Generals.

The part about the monstrous Nazi's I do agree with though.

< Message edited by sapper_astro -- 5/27/2009 4:33:27 AM >

(in reply to miral)

Post #: 2

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 5/27/2009 2:02:16 PM

JudgeDredd

Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline

I disagree - they were genius at warfare (although a bit nasty) and I think they could've wn with someone else at the helm...for info on these please ask to see "Rileys Indepth Knowledge of the World and Stuff"

(in reply to sapper_astro)

Post #: 3

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 5/27/2009 2:03:25 PM

JudgeDredd

Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Meant to ask...what does your opinion of the German Command structure have to do with this game? Why not post it in the General Discussion forum?

(in reply to JudgeDredd)

Post #: 4

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 5/27/2009 5:30:02 PM

miral

Posts: 170
Joined: 12/20/2007
Status: offline

Thanks for replies,

Sapper Astro, you do not site any sources for your disagreement as to the Germans being able to supply themselves to Paris in WWI. Have you read Prof. van Creveld's Supplying War from Wallenstein to Patton? It is a work written 25 years ago and still frequently referenced in military histories and is one of the few books actually on logistics. Military historians, like German generals, prefer the glory and interest of battle to the stodgy but enormous importance of logistics.

JudgeDredd, the Allied generals did not have the raw operational brilliance of the Germans but they had something more important; the ability and control to match ends to means. Read Germany and the Second World War; the scholars utterly demolish the view that the main problem was Hitler. The German military had, since Frederick the Great, developed a set of thought patterns, assumptions, and methods of operation that produced brilliant operational victories (sometimes, not always) but, paradoxically, mitigated against the developement of an effect strategy. This was not true of the Allies.

Those of you who admire the Germans as generals are in the same mindset as those generals; you have a Romantic approach to modern war and set it in terms of personalities and operational victories. This was, by the by, the way the South approached the Civil War (if Albert Johnson had only not been killed at the climax of Shiloh; if only Stonewall had been at Gettysburg). But modern Total Wars are wars between Systems, between entire nations with all their resources. I submit that the American achievement in WWII of producing vast amounts of weapons and war materials and transporting them thousands of miles to two wars was a greater achievement than the German generals operational victories, just not as splashy.

As to why this is here rather than in General Discussions; I don't get online much and must admit I did not know there was a general discussions. I invite the forum moderators to transfer my two threads on this subject to there as I have no idea how to do so.

But I do have a connection between this game, and all wargames, and the points I make about the German Way of War. Armies are reflections of the societies they from and the army of each nations or political entity tends to develope a characteristic and distinctive way of waging war. I think this wargame could benefit from the introduction of this concept. For instance, I belieive the Germans should be penalized logistically the further they penetrate into the Soviet Union, perhaps in a decline in combat power of their units. Also, the German military has tradtionally been somewhat contemptuous of intelligence (like the Japanese). The Intelligence East secton of Wehrmacht got almost every major thing wrong: they grossly underestimated the strength of the Soviets at start of war; they discounted the prospect of a major, enveloping counter-offensive during Stalingrad because the Soviets weren't capable of sophisticated mobile war like that; they thought the major attack of summer 1944 would come in North Ukraine rather fall on Army Group Center ect. Citino points out well in his book how German officers have long been taught to attack first on little or no recon. Rommel was especially prone to this and it got him into trouble many times (won him some, too, I'll admit, sometimes the surprise factor works but in general it is better to have some idea of your enemies numbers, dispositions ect.)

This lack of bad intelligence could be reflected in game by letting the German player see less of the opponents armies. Conversely, the Allies and the Russians spent vast time and resources on spoofing operations to deceive the Germans. The most famous is, of course, the US First Army Group in SE England that kept Hitler and most of his generals convinced that Normandy was a diversion to the real attack in the Pas de Calais until well into July and so lost them the war in the West. The Russians also did this sort of thing well. David Glantz has written an excellent book on Russian camoflage and deception operations.

This could be reflected in the game by giveing the German player a distorted picture of the Allies, with non-existent units on board, strengths of enemy units shown incorrectly ect.

The weaknesses are not on all sides, of course. The Americans and British, for instance, tend to be too methodical in their approach and often did not follow up successes agressively enough (Faliase Gap, the capture of Antwerpt and failure to clear the Scheldt). This could be reflected in game by giving American and Brits a percentage chance for each unit not being able to advance or only to advance at half speed or less after driving off a German unit(s).

The connection of the thread to the game is that each army should reflect the distinct strengths and weaknesses of its 'military culture'.

(in reply to JudgeDredd)

Post #: 5

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 5/30/2009 10:33:05 AM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

Interesting thread. I am _certanly_ no expert in the military history, let alone the specifics of Germany in WWII. However, Miral, a lot of what you say has an inherent kind of appeal to a naive reader. Wish I had the time to read the books you suggest.

Since you obviously enjoy controversy

(and boy am I surprised this thread has not taken off like a bolt) you might check out that book "The Blitzkrieg Myth." I enjoyed it a lot, but again not being an expert, it might have been utter bull crap. Still it is fun to read 'revisionist' or controversial stuff if one keeps in mind that that is what it is.

Here is a question that I'd be curious to hear you guys ponder: If Hitler had died in WWI (or had simply never been born) would WWII have happened? Or even more specific: who would have wound up being leader and what would Germany have done?

_____________________________

The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ328&feature=autoplay&list=AL94UKMTqg-9CocLGbd6tpbuQRxyF4FGNr&playnext=3

(in reply to miral)

Post #: 6

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 5/30/2009 8:57:10 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

I don't know, I got to disagree with the overall statements, the Allies were not great "thinkers" either, most of there greatest thoughts, ended up being done with manpower and "stuff" he who has the most stuff, wins

and the complaint that the Germen's didn't use logistics, and called it supply instead, is just silly, after all, that is what it basicly is, just because they didn't call it what we call it, don't mean they didn't know it or understand it, it was the conditions they were in, that caused the breakdown, it wasn't not knowing what logistics meant

also odd, how we have taken most of there terms and meanings and worked them into how we think and plan, makes you wounder how they didn't know anything

I don't think they were Idiots, any more then I think the US or English or Russians were Idiots

_____________________________

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 7

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 5/31/2009 8:48:13 AM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

The German army were not not 'idiots' who planned operations with insufficient supply, they were soldiers who were ordered to carry out missions for a country that did not have the resources for a prolonged war. They were following the whims of a crazed political leadership, which does not make the German generals innocent of all the failures and horrors that occcured, but few of them were idiots. That's why the whole tragedy lasted 5 years.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 8

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 5/31/2009 4:15:38 PM

Obsolete

Posts: 1492
Joined: 9/4/2007
Status: offline

the Allies were not great "thinkers" either, most of there greatest thoughts, ended up being done with manpower and "stuff" he who has the most stuff, wins

Well that didn't always work either. France, who had the strongest army in the world, ran it straight into the ground in reccord time. Even Napoleon would have been rolling over in his grave, and he was no stranger to that!

_____________________________

King-Tigers don't let Tiger-I's get over-run.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 9

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 6/2/2009 2:24:16 AM

parusski

Posts: 4804
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: Jackson Tn
Status: offline

Rasputitsa, JudgeDredd and super_astro all counter miral's strange, ill-informed post. But Rasputitsa, your short and to the point post deflects him best. I agree with all three posters listed here replys.

_____________________________

"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman

(in reply to Obsolete)

Post #: 10

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 6/2/2009 4:33:27 AM

krrpt

Posts: 17
Joined: 5/25/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

Rasputitsa, JudgeDredd and super_astro all counter miral's strange, ill-informed post. But Rasputitsa, your short and to the point post deflects him best. I agree with all three posters listed here replys.

What's even stranger is that you've called the only post in here to cite sources strange and ill informed. That's strange.

(in reply to parusski)

Post #: 11

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 6/2/2009 7:37:41 AM

SS Hauptsturmfuhrer

Posts: 358
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

I prefer military history over intellectual opinions. I reckon it's better people all read and learn what actually happened and then each person can form his own take on it all and discuss it over a drink with some friends. I can think for myself so I just want to know facts. Thinking for oneself is really the only freedom we all have and should never give it up.

(in reply to krrpt)

Post #: 12

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 6/2/2009 7:41:20 AM

SS Hauptsturmfuhrer

Posts: 358
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: miral
And I am accused of being anti-German. Damned right I am anti-German, if you are speaking of the Germany of WWII. As copius scholarship has now shown the majority of the German people (see Hitler's Willing Executioners) and army (again see the huge amount of documentation in Germany and the Second World War), regular as well as SS, fully supported Hitler's mass murder, colluded in it, and regreted nothing except that they lost. Let's get this straight; the Germans weren't victims, too. They were murderous monsters who got far less than they deserved in retribution.

nuts

(in reply to miral)

Post #: 13

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 6/2/2009 9:04:54 AM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: krrpt

quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

Rasputitsa, JudgeDredd and super_astro all counter miral's strange, ill-informed post. But Rasputitsa, your short and to the point post deflects him best. I agree with all three posters listed here replys.

What's even stranger is that you've called the only post in here to cite sources strange and ill informed. That's strange.

You can find 'sources' that will support any case you wish to make, there is nothing magic about sources. Knowledge comes from extensive interest and study on any subject, leading to the best conclusion you can make. I wouldn't claim to be an expert on these matters, but I treat sources with care. I had read many books recently which claim new revelations and revisions of history, sometimes they truly add to our knowledge, mostly they just muddy the waters. I have found new revelations trumpeted in current publications, which were fully explained in books on my shelves since the 1960's. There certainly have been idiots on all sides throughout history, but there are even more idiots who write books about it.

Correction - seeing that they make a lot of money out of it, perhaps they are not such idiots.

(in reply to krrpt)

Post #: 14

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 6/2/2009 11:53:10 AM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

On the point of the Germans/Prussians and their handling of Logistics, they already knew from WWI that they could not win a logistical war of attrition. The only hope for victory was a bold lightning strike for a instant win and if Plan A did not work, then there was no Plan B. Not that they were too stupid to have a Plan B, but that they knew Plan B would not work, it was all or nothing.

Blucher cast off from his supply lines, to appear out of the wet forest roads, onto Napoleon's flank to clinch the Battle of Waterloo. If Wellington had not stayed to fight, or had been quickly defeated, Blucher's army would have been cut to pieces. Idiot, or hero.

Could the Germans have supplied themselves to Paris in 1914, bearing in mind that it was harvest time in one of the most productive agricultural areas of Europe, probabily they could. Either way, if you smash your enemy at the first blow you won't need many supplies, if you don't smash him, then you've lost anyway.

The Germans are in centre of Europe surrounded by potential enemies, who have much wider resources. They had to plan for short wars with supply as a minimal consideration. It is idiotic to start wars under those conditions, but that's down to Emperors and politicians.

The British strategy was usually a slow build up for a long war of attrition and blockade. You could say that this is stupid, because it prolongs the war. However, this is what a State with a small standing army and worldwide reach on resources can do.

The Americans throw vast resources at the problem, pushing for a quick result and if that doesn't work, then there is more on the way. This may become wasteful, but that is the option for a nation with vast resources.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 15

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 6/2/2009 12:38:07 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Obsolete

the Allies were not great "thinkers" either, most of there greatest thoughts, ended up being done with manpower and "stuff" he who has the most stuff, wins

Well that didn't always work either. France, who had the strongest army in the world, ran it straight into the ground in reccord time. Even Napoleon would have been rolling over in his grave, and he was no stranger to that!

not sure we can really call France the Strongest Army in the world, it may of been large, but it was very poorly trained and poorly lead, and had very poor "stuff" to work with

and they were out thunk in the first place

_____________________________

(in reply to Obsolete)

Post #: 16

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 6/2/2009 1:27:43 PM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

I agree that the French, with the command structure that they had and with the tactical and strategic thinking behind it, had little chance of survival. One of the recent books which has thrown new light on this subject for me is 'The Blitzkrieg Legend' - Karl-Heinz Frieser. I think I understand how the French collapse happened and how the command stresses in the German army later came back to bite them, in Russia. The theme is that the attack on France was not planned as a blitzkrieg, but had been mutated by Hitler into a more conventional attack that he was more comfortable with (after his WWI experience). Guderian and the air commander Richthofen ignored, or disobeyed, orders and turned the attack into a full bloodied blitzkrieg. It became a great success, which everyone then wanted to claim credit for.

A similar situation occured during Barbarossa, after the advance to Smolensk in August 1941, Guderian again tried to bounce the High Command into continuing onwards, towards Moscow. Hitler would not allow a further insubordination and insisted on dispersing the attack into the Northern and Southern flanks (the point being, that Hitler wanted to exert control over his generals even at the expense of losing an advantage - hence the stop order at Dunkirk). Whether it would have changed anything in the end is almost impossible to judge, but it is interesting to see how personalities and jealousies act to change great events.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 17

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 6/2/2009 7:27:15 PM

krrpt

Posts: 17
Joined: 5/25/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

You can find 'sources' that will support any case you wish to make, there is nothing magic about sources. Knowledge comes from extensive interest and study on any subject, leading to the best conclusion you can make. I wouldn't claim to be an expert on these matters, but I treat sources with care. I had read many books recently which claim new revelations and revisions of history, sometimes they truly add to our knowledge, mostly they just muddy the waters. I have found new revelations trumpeted in current publications, which were fully explained in books on my shelves since the 1960's.

That sources need to be placed appropriately in a value hierarchy really should have gone without saying.

Western historians are trained to stress the principle of consulting sources and in this case the man cited one scholarly work from a prestigious institution - the multi-volume "Germany and the Second World War" - and referenced two other scholars - Robert Citino and Martin van Creveld.

Calling that strange is in and of itself strange. Calling it ill informed is not only strange it's confusing. Who is ill informed and more importantly why? Is it miral who has drawn poor conclusions from the works cited or did the poster mean to suggest that Citino, van Creveld, and/or the dozen or more folks involved in the production of "Germany and Second World War" don't have much knowledge on their subject matter? I'll tell you what is strange: not citing sources.

My expectations are too high for amateur message boards and since I haven't studied a single volume of "Germany and the Second World War" I can't properly respond to any of its theses. Gentlemen, I leave you to it.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 18

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 6/2/2009 9:13:49 PM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

For my part, I am commenting on the conclusions drawn from the quoted sources. This is too big a subject for a scholarly dissertation, but I think that most of the effects that are being noted during WW2 come back to Hitler himself. His main concern appears to be that of control, his government was chaotic with Government departments and organisations having overlapping responsibilities, with Hitler acting as an arbiter and everyone fighting for his approval. A very inefficient form of war economy, with multiplicity of designs, captured equipment, different parts requirements, etc.. None of this is new.

I have noted in an earlier post that Hitler was prepared to compromise his objectives to exert control. The example is the halt order before Dunkirk, noted in the 'Blitzkrieg Legend'. Guderian was exeeding his orders in turning a more conventional operation into a faster moving Blitzkrieg, heading rapidly towards the coast and leaving the infantry divisions behind. His superior, Kliest, was concerned that his forces were being separated and issued the halt order to the armoured forces to close up his command. Rundstedt, seeing the favourable situation developing overuled the halt order. Hitler visited Rundstedt's HQ to find that he had not been consulted on the issue and reinstated the halt order to put Rundstedt in his place and demonstrate his own control. There are many other examples, the ME262 ordered as a bomber, opposition to the MP44 assault rifle, refusal to approve withdrawal from Stalingrad, etc..

Goebbles only announced that Germany was declaring 'Total War' in 1943, by which time the Allies had been on a total war footing for some time and it was much too late for Germany. Germany was short on logistics for many reasons, but that does not make the Germans idiots. I have no brief to support the German generals and armed forces of WW2, the atrocities and crude racism are obvious, but militarily they played the hand that they were dealt and if that meant operating with limited logistics, then so be it. If German generals paid too much attention to tactical and operational solutions it was because Germany had little Strategic capability.

In 1914 the German commanders would not have troubled themselves over whose food and animal fodder they took, but they would have taken what they wanted. Quote - 'Before Barbarrosa was launched the Quartermasters Office of the German Army told the combat generals that they could supply the Army tolerably well to the line of the Dnepr, but not beyond.' Does anyone think that the German army wasn't aware of the supply shortage, it was not their decision to launch Barbarossa, but they got well beyond the Dnepr, mounting major encirclements until stopped by the weather. I am not questioning the proposal that the Germans did not plan adequately for logistics, but their only hope was for a quick victory and you cannot ignore the overarching effect that Hitler had on German all operations.

I will be silent for a while as we are going away, but I have no problem in being seen as an amateur, God help us if we ever have to be professionals at war.

(in reply to krrpt)

Post #: 19

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 6/4/2009 6:19:52 PM

06 Maestro

Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

If a "scholar" comes to a "conclusion" that the German General Staff did not concern itself with logistics, then he is a liar or a fraud. It is not possible to make even a rudimentary investigation of that organization and come to such a ridiculous conclusion. The entire purpose of that organization was to "institutionalize military excellence". The study of logistics is of the greatest importance in that endeavor.

It should be noted that the General Staff was a branch of the Army just as their are combat arms, quartermaster, medical and so on. An officer would receive his initial commission in the GGS as a junior officer. Every HQ would have staff officers assigned in TO&E positions to assist the commander of that unit. The higher the HQ-the higher the rank of the General Staff Officer. The Staff Officer had a responsibility to not only ensure that an operation was properly planned, but also to advise the CO if what he wanted to do could be supported by the available assets.

How someone could look at the logistical preparation for Barbarossa and conclude that the planners were incompetent is beyond me. Had they been more aware of the state of Russia's road network, and the Soviet intention to conduct "scorched earth", then something more may have been done in preparation. As it was, they amassed as much motor transport and horses as could reasonably be done. This included 600,000 trucks at a time when German production was about 4000 per month-was that an easy task? Some divisions had more than a dozen different types of standard lorries because an effort was made to acquire as many as was possible-and even that amount was not the total that was wished for. In addition to the trucks there were something like 750000 horses (IIRC).

In some cases, such a Rommel going into Egypt in '42, a case could be made for a lack of understanding of logistics. However, in such cases you will find, if you look, that the senior command fought against such operations, and as in the case of Rommel in '42 was only allowed to proceed because Hitler over road the General Staffs recommendations (in this case, also the LW and Heer high command for the Mediterranean).

The institutions which propagate such drivel, regardless how high, will in time be viewed with utter contempt. An author with a desire to present a different view just for argument (or to make a buck) is no big deal-more power to him. If a government agency tries to twist facts to support its official view of history-that is rather pathetic.

_____________________________

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 20

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 6/4/2009 6:50:14 PM

06 Maestro

Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

quote:

And I am accused of being anti-German. Damned right I am anti-German, if you are speaking of the Germany of WWII. As copius scholarship has now shown the majority of the German people (see Hitler's Willing Executioners) and army (again see the huge amount of documentation in Germany and the Second World War), regular as well as SS, fully supported Hitler's mass murder, colluded in it, and regreted nothing except that they lost. Let's get this straight; the Germans weren't victims, too. They were murderous monsters who got far less than they deserved in retribution.

Apparently you are not aware of what happened in Germany after the war. Even where there is a free flow of information, it is not well known. I will only site a US Senator from Circa 1947 in a speech on the floor who said that "if the American people knew what was happening in Germany there would be a revolution in this country". He was not talking about how good the Germans had it.

Someone had to pay for the crimes of Hitler and Germans are the rational choice. They did pay a price that was far more mortal and brutal than anyone else.

You have started 4 threads now on the same subject. You have received more or less the same type of responses. Perhaps you should make an effort to re-think some of the situations that occurred during the war and ask yourself; what could I have done different and better if I had been the Operations officer of the 4th PZ Army in 1943. Would you kill Hitler? Would you provide your commander with all the info he needed to win the battle you were in? Would you life experience and personal honor exceed that of the man who was actually in that position?

IMO, those fellows that are putting out this current official history in Germany are the worst kind of lacky's. They would have been groveling at Hitler's feet rather than attempting to tell him like it is.

_____________________________

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to 06 Maestro)

Post #: 21

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 6/5/2009 12:31:31 AM

Mus

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

IMO, those fellows that are putting out this current official history in Germany are the worst kind of lacky's. They would have been groveling at Hitler's feet rather than attempting to tell him like it is.

So true. These guys grovel at the feet of toothless Political Correctness. How much more slavish would their devotion be to a master who was going to punish disobedience with death or worse?

< Message edited by Mus -- 6/5/2009 12:32:06 AM >

_____________________________

Mindset, Tactics, Skill, Equipment
Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

(in reply to 06 Maestro)

Post #: 22

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 6/5/2009 12:37:04 AM

Mus

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

Goebbles only announced that Germany was declaring 'Total War' in 1943, by which time the Allies had been on a total war footing for some time and it was much too late for Germany.

Why would you take statements by Goebbles as anything but Propaganda? Propaganda was his function.

Do you believe Germany was on anything but a total war footing prior to that? I dont.

In 1943 Goebbles released a propaganda statement that Germany hadnt really been trying and now they were really gonna put on their try faces.

Thats how I read that.

< Message edited by Mus -- 6/5/2009 12:39:50 AM >

_____________________________

Mindset, Tactics, Skill, Equipment
Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 23

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 6/5/2009 9:04:13 AM

SS Hauptsturmfuhrer

Posts: 358
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mus

quote:

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

IMO, those fellows that are putting out this current official history in Germany are the worst kind of lacky's. They would have been groveling at Hitler's feet rather than attempting to tell him like it is.

So true. These guys grovel at the feet of toothless Political Correctness. How much more slavish would their devotion be to a master who was going to punish disobedience with death or worse?

I recommend you avoid that kind of intellectual, biased stuff designed to get your money rather than teach you things about the war. Stick to real military history like David Glantz or many other books which explain history unbiased and 100% fact. It's much more interesting cause you don't have to skim through pages of empty babble like you get from intellectual literature.

Here are two well-written educational books which are hard to stop reading and they contain no opinions or theories, just the story as it happened.

http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Ruhr-German-Defeat-Studies/dp/0700614907

http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Faithful-3rd-Panzer-Korps/dp/0921991614/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244188947&sr=1-1

_____________________________

Korsun Pocket

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 24

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 6/5/2009 10:14:39 PM

Mus

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SS Hauptsturmfuhrer

I recommend you avoid that kind of intellectual, biased stuff designed to get your money rather than teach you things about the war. Stick to real military history like David Glantz or many other books which explain history unbiased and 100% fact.

I agree, and very much distrust and dislike history that I believe is motivated or influenced by political factors more than is inevitable in any human work.

< Message edited by Mus -- 6/5/2009 11:19:01 PM >

_____________________________

Mindset, Tactics, Skill, Equipment
Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

(in reply to SS Hauptsturmfuhrer)

Post #: 25

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 6/6/2009 11:04:34 PM

ezzler

Posts: 863
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline

"The prime German error was a constant failure to match resources to ends"

Hmm. So ?
Would that not be a good description of the Bomber offensive 1940 - 1944?
The Commonwealth Greek adventure? How would the 1940 Allied Norway invasion be best discussed? A strategic leap to secure iron ore? Was it well supplied? Did it achieve its purpose. was it remotely realistic.
was the Dyle plan a really good plan considering the forces and time available?

Positioning a fleet at Pearl Harbour that was near enough to be a tempting target and small enough to be effectively damaged.. would you say that showed allied superiority in strategy?

The truth is the war was the usual mix of money, politics, resources and personalities. I am unimpressed with your concussions Miral that the Germans were military fools. That may well be partly, but not totally true. If it were as damming as you attest they wouldn't have got past Poland.

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 26

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 6/7/2009 5:34:55 AM

Berkut

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline

I don't really want to get into an in depth debate on this, but i think most of you are not really understanding what he is saying - not because you are incapable, but because you are looking at the 10,000ft view of the problem, and he is looking at the 30,000ft view.

Just food for thought.

(in reply to ezzler)

Post #: 27

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 6/7/2009 6:05:04 AM

06 Maestro

Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

It is difficult to discuss this subject with the rules of this forum-this is not the place to get into the root problem of the primary differences. The difference is not about an amount of detail-its the details itself. I'm afraid it is impossible to avoid politics in such a discussion.
If Miral knows of a site in English where he would like to discuss this I would be more than happy to oblige-for a while anyway. So, Miral please feel free to PM me/us.

_____________________________

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to Berkut)

Post #: 28

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 7/17/2009 10:57:54 AM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

I have been away and I am late in getting back to this,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mus
Why would you take statements by Goebbles as anything but Propaganda? Propaganda was his function.

Do you believe Germany was on anything but a total war footing prior to that? I dont.

Yes I do believe that Germany was late in moving to a full 'Total War' footing. We all have to rely on sources and this thread was triggered by discussion on sources, but I feel that this issue is covered in many publications. I use the following quote as I read it two days ago, having just bought the book

'Perhaps Germany's most fundamental logistical vulnerability was the fact that it had not mobilized its economy for war.' - The Battle for Leningrad 1941-1944 - David M Glantz

This could have come from any one of a dozen books I have on my shelves. It is only after extensive reading that there can be any confidence in the truth. We are all at the mercy of our sources, but I believe my original comment to be correct.

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 29

RE: Again, The Germans ARE Strategic Idiots - 7/22/2009 11:13:56 PM

panzers

Posts: 635
Joined: 5/19/2006
From: Detroit Mi, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Meant to ask...what does your opinion of the German Command structure have to do with this game? Why not post it in the General Discussion forum?

lol. As I'm looking own the forum, I was waiting who would be the first to say that. WTF! Save it for other forums. Like umm, say, General forum? yeah, that one. There is one right now as of this post dealing particularly about this very topic.
I came on here to see the latest on CEAW gold, not your opinion about the best generals, by far, in WWII.
And, if you want to debate that, then go to the general forum and I will chew you up and spit you out like a coyote on road kill, on the topic.

(in reply to JudgeDredd)

Post #: 30