Why was the Wehrmacht so superior?

[Archduke Sven]

They had done the exact same thing to Warsaw to force a Polish surrender so the idea didn't come out of nowhere.

[Duuring]

Of course it wasn't. But it was not in the original plan. It wasn't even the plan when the Wehrmacht commander asked for a bombardment. You can even argue it's a Nazi war-crime (Targeting civilians and attacking during an official truce) which had nothing to do with the actions of the Wehrmacht on that day.

[Archduke Sven]

Not everything was outlined in the plan. In 1940 the Wehrmacht still operated with mission command, thus everything was up to change with consideration of the tactical and operational situations.

There weren't only civilians in Rotterdam, there were also soldiers thus it is on the Dutch government's own accord it didn't declare it a free city. Also, KG54 didn't receive the orders to cancel it's operation, which means the subsequent damage was unintentional at the given time (when it was truce).

Not saying that the levelling of a portion of a city isn't inhumane, just to clarify.

[Duuring]

The plan was a one-day victory, and it failed. The Dutch government and royal family fled and installed a government-in-exile with the charismatic queen in charge; The colonial armies joined the British, Australian and later American allies. The Dutch navy even had subs. We certainly didn't turn the tide of the war, but we made our contribution.

Back to 1940, the Dutch government also kinda didn't expect a direct bombardment on a city. And flatting an entire city because there might be a few soldiers in it while ignoring fortifications were there are soldiers in it for sure, seems rather counter-productive to me. Unless you want to specifically hit civilians - Which they did. The attack was used as a threat and the fact is was carried out was both unnecessary (as the Dutch had already surrendered) and indeed not wanted by the Wehrmacht.

All in all, the Blitz was completely unnecessary and eventually only resulted in the Dutch being even more angry at the Germans. The Rotterdam Blitz was a sour point between Dutch-Germans relationships during the war. The Germans actually gave permission to memorial services in the following years, to try and win back some sympathy.

[Archduke Sven]

I'm pretty sure more Dutch served in the Waffen-SS than did in the government-in-exile's forces.

Furthermore the bombing wasn't counter-productive since the Germans were able to capitalise on it quickly. As the Dutch surrendered after the Germans bombed Rotterdam since they threatened to do the same to Utrecht. That is when they surrendered, not during the bombing.

As for the realtions thing, yeah i agree with ya there.

Anyhow gonna sleep nao, g'nite

[Duuring]

I'm pretty sure more Dutch served in the Waffen-SS than did in the government-in-exile's forces.

Sure, but I'd like you to not draw conclusions out of just numbers.
There were 20.000 in both Wehr and Waffen-SS, which is less then the lowest estimation of people active in the resistance (25.000 in 1943). Interesting enough, most volunteers actually thought they were going to be an independent Dutch unit, allied like the Romanians or Hungarians. When their commander was told they would become Waffen-SS, he protested - To no avail. They believed in the anti-communist propaganda they were fed. One has to remember it was also a lot easier to join the Germans (A walk to the recruitment office) then sail to England which could mean certain death if captured. Not all of those 20.000 ever saw actions - Only one brigade did. The true hardened National-socialist didn't join the Waffen-SS. They joined the 'Nederlansche SS', which was a bad copy of the Germans and did not serve on any front and ceased to exist with the fall of the Nazi government.

The Dutch Free forces consisted of a few thousand men. Obviously, besides the Dutch colonial army, which consisted of over 35.000 soldiers, of which about 2/3 natives. Their loyalty different per national group, but there was no outbreak or 'stab-in-the-back' during the invasion - More 'let's make the best of the situation', just like the Dutch in the Netherlands itself.
I'd also like to name the Ambonese here, who actually were loyal as fuck and even joined the anti-Japanese resistance. Parts of the colonial army escaped, such as squadrons and ships, which joined the Americans or Australians. Dutch marines even had a training camp in the USA. Their numbers weren't spectacular or tide-turning, but you can't deny their existence.

I won't deny, of course, that many Dutchmen threw their lot in with the Nazi's and some even became Nazi-supporters. It's just something that goes a bit further then just looking at how big the units were.

Furthermore the bombing wasn't counter-productive since the Germans were able to capitalise on it quickly. As the Dutch surrendered after the Germans bombed Rotterdam since they threatened to do the same to Utrecht. That is when they surrendered, not during the bombing.

The Dutch forces in Rotterdam surrendered. Which was what the Germans asked when they threaten with the Blitz. After it had happened they just seized the opportunity. The blitz was simply not needed. By the way, Dutch forces in Zeeland didn't surrender and fought on for a few more days.

[Archduke Sven]

I'm pretty sure more Dutch served in the Waffen-SS than did in the government-in-exile's forces.

Sure, but I'd like you to not draw conclusions out of just numbers.
There were 20.000 in both Wehr and Waffen-SS, which is less then the lowest estimation of people active in the resistance (25.000 in 1943). Interesting enough, most volunteers actually thought they were going to be an independent Dutch unit, allied like the Romanians or Hungarians. When their commander was told they would become Waffen-SS, he protested - To no avail. They believed in the anti-communist propaganda they were fed. One has to remember it was also a lot easier to join the Germans (A walk to the recruitment office) then sail to England which could mean certain death if captured. Not all of those 20.000 ever saw actions - Only one brigade did. The true hardened National-socialist didn't join the Waffen-SS. They joined the 'Nederlansche SS', which was a bad copy of the Germans and did not serve on any front and ceased to exist with the fall of the Nazi government.

The Dutch Free forces consisted of a few thousand men. Obviously, besides the Dutch colonial army, which consisted of over 35.000 soldiers, of which about 2/3 natives. Their loyalty different per national group, but there was no outbreak or 'stab-in-the-back' during the invasion - More 'let's make the best of the situation', just like the Dutch in the Netherlands itself.
I'd also like to name the Ambonese here, who actually were loyal as fuck and even joined the anti-Japanese resistance. Parts of the colonial army escaped, such as squadrons and ships, which joined the Americans or Australians. Dutch marines even had a training camp in the USA. Their numbers weren't spectacular or tide-turning, but you can't deny their existence.

I won't deny, of course, that many Dutchmen threw their lot in with the Nazi's and some even became Nazi-supporters. It's just something that goes a bit further then just looking at how big the units were.

There were 50 000 who passed through service in the SS alone. The majority went through the 4. SS-PzGr-Brigade 'Nederlands' ,Westland regiment of the Wiking division and then the Landsstorm Nederlands brigade (all of these formations saw combat). Although at no single point was the total strength over 20 000.

So, i'm not denying the existence of loyalist units like the Dutch royal marines or the Prinsess Irene brigade, but seems like more ended up joining the Germans for varying reasons.

[Duuring]

Landstorm Nederland was a joke. And even including those I'm nearly sure the number did not went above 25.000.

[Archduke Sven]

Landstorm Nederland was a joke. And even including those I'm nearly sure the number did not went above 25.000.

It wasn't a joke. It proved itself fully capable of combat operations on several occasions, including Arnhem. 50 000 dutch soldiers served at one point or another since they had to pass through rotation + replacements for casualties.

[Johan]

I decided to post my own post here, in response to Sven and any other Pro-Germany-during-WW2-guys.

Economic:

Unemployment in Nazi Germany went down to essentially zero. This was not done through the creation of jobs, merely the firing of large amounts of jews and women. Easy to "create" jobs when you're simply replacing workers.

Lets have a look at the unemployment rate and the tinkering with statistics. The biggest claim Nazi apologists make regarding the economy is " no unemployment" and not increased growth, living standards, real wages or even GDP which are traditionally associated with a functioning, healthy economy.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazis_and_the_german_economy.htm

Women were no longer included in the statistics so any women who remained out of work under the Nazi’s rule did not exist as far as the statistics were concerned.

The unemployed were given a very simple choice: do whatever work is given to you by the government or be classed as "work-shy" and put in a concentration camp.

Jews lost their citizenship in 1935 and as a result were not included in unemployment figures even though many lost their employment at the start of Hitler’s time in power.

Many young men were taken off of the unemployment figure when conscription was brought in (1935) and men had to do their time in the army etc. By 1939, the army was 1.4 million strong. To equip these men with weapons etc., factories were built and this took even more off of the unemployment figure.

That's not job creation or the makings of a healthy economy. That is nothing less than a military build-up, a temporary bubble that cannot be sustained without of course, war.

Trade Unions? lol, not in Nazi Germany. Workers rights were abolished. They were granted a holiday and then the trade unions were abolished. Also:

the GLF increased the number of hours worked from 60 to 72 per week (including overtime) by 1939. Strikes were outlawed.

The country underwent significant government investment, at the cost of dramatically increasing the debt of the country:

government income had been 10 billion Reichsmarks in 1928. In 1939, it stood at 15 billion. However, government spending had increased from 12 billion Reichsmarks in 1928 to over 30 billion in 1939 - a difference of 15 billion Reichsmarks. From 1933 to 1939, the Nazi government always spent more than it earned so that by 1939, government debt stood at over 40 billion Resichsmarks.

So economic wise and not even regarding the war, Nazi Germany was calling laying off women and jews "full employment" and calling plunging the country into debt "growing the economy".

Eugenics:

I don't need to say much except their science was wrong.

http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Images/Figure%207-2.GIF

Apologies for poor quality, check the link.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/images/DNA_tree.gif

Here are some pictures that sums up the breaks between different populations of humanity.

Russians are not that different yet the Nazis saw them as subhuman. Not sure about you guys but I'm a man of science, I base my views on the world on scientific evidence. Backing the Nazis who embraced what can best be seen as quackery is a fools goal, a fool who does not know what science is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race

Nazi racial theorist Hans F. K. Günther identified the Aryan race in Europe as having five subtype races: Nordic, Mediterranean, Dinaric, Alpine, and East Baltic.[40] Günther applied a Nordicist conception that Nordics were the highest in the racial hierarchy amongst these five Aryan subtype races.[41] In his book Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes (1922) ("Racial Science of the German People"), Günther recognized Germans as being composed of all five Aryan subtypes, but emphasized the strong Nordic heritage amongst Germans.

Since the military defeat of Nazi Germany by the Allies in 1945, most neo-Nazis have expanded their concept of the Aryan race, moving from the Nazi concept that the purest Aryans were the Teutonics or Nordics of Northern Europe to the idea that the true Aryans are everyone descended from the Western or European branch of the Indo-European peoples because it is believed that they most closely resemble the original racial stock of the Proto-Indo-Europeans.

Lol, moving the goalposts. GG Nazis.



The Holocaust:

The main reason most, included myself despise the Nazis.

"But Johann lots of countries killed civilians" I hear in the background. Yeah no shit sherlock.

The Nazis turned killing civilians into something completely different which other countries did not replicate and have not since. The Nazis turned the killing of civilians into an industrial process, complete with limited recycling of the body parts. The act of industrialising the killing makes it worse than every other country. Numbers be damned, humanity is still reeling from the shame.

I will not pretend that one type of killing is better or worse than another, but the mentality behind it is different. The allies dropped bombs to weaken the industry and morale as their primary goals in the bombing over Germany. The Nazis rounded up people like cattle and sent them into camps so they could kill as fast as possible given the technology.

You see shooting civilians takes a lot of time and fucks with a lot of soldier's heads. To make the killing easier they used the concentration camps with gas. You round up people, gas them, incinerate and repeat until you're done. Instead of shooting a couple of thousand a day, you can kill several tens of thousands or even more.


Totalitarianism:

The Nazis created a closed society where any dissent meant death. Any criticism at all of the Nazis and you're shipped off to a concentration camp.

And these are humans in charge, humans who can be corrupt and malevolent. I'm sure there were plenty of instances of people taking a dislike to another and sending them off to a camp since they had the power.

I'm sure though for the apologists among us, you'd never have a disagreement with the regime. Either that or you'd be too much of a pussy to stand up for others.
 
1. Free Press? LOL
2. Freedom of Speech? LOL
3. Freedom of Assembly? LOL
4. Habeas Corpus? LOL
5. Political Freedom? LOL
6. Economic Freedom? LOL
7. Good Economy? LOL
8. Good Leadership? LOL

And since this will inevitably bring in ww2, here's some facts for you gents:

Military and WW2:

The German military was overrated. So elite, so professional and yet so many horses. 1/5th of the Wehrmacht were motorised, mechanised or armoured. 4/5ths of the Wehrmacht with the mechanisation used horses for logistics, particularly for artillery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_World_War_II

Now I open on talking about horses because it's always important to remember that while a country like Germany had elite divisions of panzers they did not have a lot. The German army was not a mechanised juggernaut, its backbone was regular infantry. The Eastern front was not a contest of tank vs tank or plane vs plane but of millions of soldiers on both sides facing off against each other with rifle and machine gun.

On another note, the Sherman tank was a successful design because it did exactly what it was designed to do: act as infantry support while the tank destroyers got the tanks.

An excellent summary of the Sherman: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110227030742AAD1SGB

Why mention the Sherman? Because of the cost comparison one can make.

http://www.ww2f.com/topic/20451-cost-of-ww2-weapons/

$46,000. M4 (Sherman) tank. 35 tons. 75mm main gun.
$46,387. Panzer MkIVG (and later) tank. 75mm main gun. 50mm armor.
$60,000. Panzer MkV (Panther) tank. 75mm/70 main gun. 80mm armor.
$119,920. Panzer MkVIE (Tiger) tank. 88mm main gun. 100mm armor.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_cost_of_a_sherman_tank_in_World_War_2_dollars

Refiguring the estimates, Chrysler put a cost per [Sherman] tank of $33,500.

http://ww2total.com/WW2/Weapons/Vehicles/Tanks/US/Sherman-tank/M4-Sherman.htm

44.556-49.997 $
= 11.000-12.500 £
= 99.000-111.000 RM

Sherman was cheaper, not as cheap as you'd suspect but still demonstrably cheaper to produce. Remember that the Tiger and Sherman were designed with different roles in mind so the two are not directly comparable in a 1-1 fight.

Quantity must be compared with quality, they are not mutually exclusive. If you produce more expensive tanks you will have less. Less tanks means you lose, unless of course you kill all of the enemy tanks, but it's likely their more numerous, poorer quality tanks will overwhelm.

My point here is that the image of the Germany military as some elite, super powerful force is a myth. At the least you must recognised that every tiger equalled several tanks on the allied side. Essentially I am using the Sherman as just one example of where the Allies outproduced Nazi Germany even with the same costs given.


Continuing, I'd like to present a comparison of GDP between the nations in WW2:

http://www.onwar.com/articles/0302.htm

Allied/Axis ratio of GDP being the most telling here.

Germany did not have an exceptional economy.

This'll do for now.


So what's my view of Nazism? It's that it's shit, doesn't work and the apparently awful liberal democracy we have is vastly superior. If I was alive in Nazi Germany as the person I am today, I'd have already been executed and probably half of you guys too.

[Archduke Sven]

If i were you, i'd post that in a different thread because 75% of what you posted is irrelevant to the discussion. So i wont bother answering that in this thread. I will answer the on topic parts:

Military and WW2:

The German military was overrated. So elite, so professional and yet so many horses. 1/5th of the Wehrmacht were motorised, mechanised or armoured. 4/5ths of the Wehrmacht with the mechanisation used horses for logistics, particularly for artillery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_World_War_II

The Wehrmacht had only existed for 4 years at the time of the outbreak of war. The Wehrmacht simply didn't have the resources to rebuild into a fully modern army in such a small amount of time. Simoultaneously, the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine, and construction in Germany along with the Wehrmacht had to all try to rebuild themselves on the small amount of resources Germany had for this monumental task of rebuilding the country and all 3 combat arms into a modern state. As we can see, they simply didn't have the time to build a huge amount of trucks to carry the logistics of this army that had increased 30 times in size.

Yet, even without a fully mechanized army, reliant on horses for their logistics and towing, they still achieved some of the fastest and most decisive advances in modern history. That goes to show the skill of the Wehrmacht in conducting offensive operations even without modern equipment.

And those 1/5th with mechanization, well, history already speaks for their military prowess.

Now I open on talking about horses because it's always important to remember that while a country like Germany had elite divisions of panzers they did not have a lot. The German army was not a mechanised juggernaut, its backbone was regular infantry. The Eastern front was not a contest of tank vs tank or plane vs plane but of millions of soldiers on both sides facing off against each other with rifle and machine gun.

I doubt anyone here still believes that Germany was a fully mechanized army. However their armoured forces are best remembered for the paramount achievements they did despite their small numbers. The combat effectiveness of the armoured divisions is always demonstrated in their speed of advances and stubborness in defence. Soviet commanders were always seeking sectors without Panzer-Divisions because they knew how potent their offensive capabilities were.

Those regular infantrymen that were the main force of the Wehrmacht did their job fine. They were always faced with superior numbers and yet they always fought with skill and often came out on top on the tactical side of a battle. I'm not denying they were painfully defeated on several occasions, but more often than not, their effectivness in battle is demonstrated in the casualties of their opponents and the difference in forces. They were often let down by higher up commanders later in the war.

On another note, the Sherman tank was a successful design because it did exactly what it was designed to do: act as infantry support while the tank destroyers got the tanks.

An excellent summary of the Sherman: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110227030742AAD1SGB

Why mention the Sherman? Because of the cost comparison one can make.

http://www.ww2f.com/topic/20451-cost-of-ww2-weapons/

$46,000. M4 (Sherman) tank. 35 tons. 75mm main gun.
$46,387. Panzer MkIVG (and later) tank. 75mm main gun. 50mm armor.
$60,000. Panzer MkV (Panther) tank. 75mm/70 main gun. 80mm armor.
$119,920. Panzer MkVIE (Tiger) tank. 88mm main gun. 100mm armor.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_cost_of_a_sherman_tank_in_World_War_2_dollars

Refiguring the estimates, Chrysler put a cost per [Sherman] tank of $33,500.

http://ww2total.com/WW2/Weapons/Vehicles/Tanks/US/Sherman-tank/M4-Sherman.htm

44.556-49.997 $
= 11.000-12.500 £
= 99.000-111.000 RM

It's hard to trust a website that can't even get the armor thickness of tanks right. The German tanks were excellent tanks aswell, they were multi-faceted, good against armor, potent against infantry. The problem remains that there was never enough of them because Germany entered a total war economy so late and focused too much on creating newer designs rather than sticking with one good one. These decisions had little to do with the Wehrmacht, those who decided what tank got produced were often tucked well inside Nazi beauracracy.

Sherman was cheaper, not as cheap as you'd suspect but still demonstrably cheaper to produce. Remember that the Tiger and Sherman were designed with different roles in mind so the two are not directly comparable in a 1-1 fight.

Quantity must be compared with quality, they are not mutually exclusive. If you produce more expensive tanks you will have less. Less tanks means you lose, unless of course you kill all of the enemy tanks, but it's likely their more numerous, poorer quality tanks will overwhelm.

Price and quantity doesn't really matter at this point, the USA's industrial capability was twice that of Germany, with the UK and Canada's industries its thrice as large. With the USSR's economy it was 6 times the size of Germany's industrial capacity. Germany would never have had the chance to produce enough tanks either way, thus trying to find a design that was simply overwhelmingly superior was the best chance the Germans had. The Panther and the Sherman are better to compare, and there you see that the Panthers are vastly superior to the Shermans in everyway except ease of manufacture.

My point here is that the image of the Germany military as some elite, super powerful force is a myth. At the least you must recognised that every tiger equalled several tanks on the allied side. Essentially I am using the Sherman as just one example of where the Allies outproduced Nazi Germany even with the same costs given.

Not elite, not super powerful, no. It is simply superior to the Allied armies given the circumstances. The Wehrmacht were able to outfight the allies on almost all operational and tactical scales. The Wehrmacht were let down by strategic blunders that were outside of their role.  The Wehrmacht is universally recognised as the most powerful military force that had seen large scale action, and this wasn't done through mass-producing cheap equipment, the might of the Wehrmacht always lied with the skill of the commanders and the combat effectiveness of individual soldiers.

[Johan]

You're saying Germany only had 4 years of time to rebuild, and their industry was weaker then the allies, then why did Hitler start the war? He clearly pushed Germany through the door un-prepared. The war itself was a mistake then.

Also, you're claiming alot of stuff without evidence. I am not denying the German army's ability, I am denying it's elite-ness and professionalism. It's overrated as fuck, yet they lost the war.

How come Germany lost the war if their soldiers were so professional and well-trained? They were outproduced. Industry and economical might wins wars. Britain proved that during the Napoleonic Wars and the Allied nations proved that during World War I and II.

German tanks and equiptment in general was more expensive then the allied equiptment. They might be more reliable, but if you're outnumbered as hell, you need alot of equiptment FAST. Not to invent new tanks that might or might not even work.  I belive that Germany basically fucked itself over during the war really.

The post was also just a general anti-nazi thing. Most of the stuff isn't relevant to the thread indeed however there isn't a thread about National Socialism as far as I know, so I posted it here. Nevertheless the ideology is one of the main reasons for the war so in a way it is indeed relevant.

[Archduke Sven]

You're saying Germany only had 4 years of time to rebuild, and their industry was weaker then the allies, then why did Hitler start the war? He clearly pushed Germany through the door un-prepared. The war itself was a mistake then.

Well Hitler didn't think the Brits and French would actually help the Poles. He thought he'd get another treaty of Munich so that he would get West Prussia and Wartheland back. The Wehrmacht was preparing for the real war around 1943. I don't really mind that though, i have much prefer this world than the one the Nazis might have created if they won the war.

Also, you're claiming alot of stuff without evidence. I am not denying the German army's ability, I am denying it's elite-ness and professionalism. It's overrated as fuck, yet they lost the war.

Well to me i read my sources out of books. I seldom trust the internet for historical evidence because
1. Most of the authors on internet websites have no professional careers, thus if they write wrong/and or biased information nothing happens to them, they don't have a career to lose.
2. The information isn't critiqued before hadn by a publisher.
3. Most of the writers on the web are unreliable in themselves.

As for where i get my information from, i read books, i got lots of WW2 books at home, and i read a lot at my local library. So for me to find exactly where so and so i stated is rather a nuisance to me since i have to find the exact book, then flip through the pages and skim read to find where i read it, quite time consuming and generally something i am too lazy to do for a forum thread. Thus, what seems like common sense to me isn't for you since you haven't read the same as me.

As for the Wehrmacht's professionalism, it is entirely there. The Wehrmacht was indeed very professional in it's choosing of officers, it's training and education of it's soldiers, this can be seen in the 16 weeks of training for a Wehrmacht infantryman in comparison 12 weeks of a US one.

[Duuring]

Hitler was fully aware and waiting for a war with Britain and France. Maybe it arrived a little bit earlier then expected, but as Britain and France did nothing during the Sitzkrieg, it really didn't matter anyway.

[Augy]

yes, they were amazing, also take in effect that for a long time till 1942 i believe- they fed their armed forces amphetamines which made them perform rather great but then they started noticing addiction and how fucked up people get on amphetamines. aka tankerschocolate.

the allies did it aswel but not on the scale of the germans, holy shit.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/the-nazi-death-machine-hitler-s-drugged-soldiers-a-354606.html