Why was the Wehrmacht so superior?

[Duuring]

Well, I got it somewhere, I guess. It's in Dutch though, and if I remember correctly it was pretty small. Had a nice picture of a Union Surgeon next to it, though.

[Archduke Sven]

Well Duuring, i never said that it was fool proof snd books are always better. Its more of a rule of thumb. Certain websites (Dedicated history webdites) have great information, cited and referenced with good research that you wont find in all books. However i think we both can agree that Yahoo answers and Wiki answers aren't reliable. Just the fact that in academics books viewed as better sources inclines me to observe the same.

[Duuring]

Or preferably, just do research yourself and use only primary sources.

[Archduke Sven]

Or preferably, just do research yourself and use only primary sources.

Primary sources aren't always reliable D:

To be honest, for forum discussions i cant be arsed using sources, 2 much effort.

+ its genuinly more interesting when you argue with your personal knowledge.

[Duuring]

They are still more reliable then some books who are secondary or even tertiary. That means they take stuff people wrote about people who wrote about what people did. Just horrible.

I kinda hate it when people get in an argument and back up their statements with a certain author or book. 'It's true, because that's what W. Willy wrote in his book!'. I try to nearly exclusively use primary sources in my research, and if I can't find something, then I consider going to secondary sources as a temporarily answer. I'm not saying I'm the world's greatest historian, but that's how I think research should be done. Then there's the discussion what actually is or isn't primary material...

Ah well. Doing research is ungrateful work.

[Johan]

Sorry Sven, but

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.

What that's supposed to mean? Someone who writes on the internet does sloppy research? I can throw hundreds of scientific books at you with bad research.

2. The information isn't critiqued before hadn by a publisher.

Publishers most of the time hardly know anything about the historical periods. An acquittance of mine made a book covering (part of) the Crimea war based entirely on primary sources, and the publisher kept making notes that came down to 'That didn't happen like that, I was thought that in high school'. Publishers check if the book is going to be sold well, not if things are historicaly correct. The publisher of previously mentioned book actually made a note that the book might be too 'anti-British' as it made short work of the various myths concerning the Crimea, and that made result in negative reactions. The author was, by the way, British.

3. Most of the writers on the web are unreliable in themselves.

That's a pretty shabby argument. It doesn't even mean something. 'You can't be trusted because you can't be trusted'.

Psst im gonna hop in here to ask you where you get the source for cocaine pills issued to ACW soldiers?  Only heard of doctors giving opiums during surgery.

Historic magazine. If you are sure that it didn't happen, I believe you. I never did much research into it, I just remembered it when people start talking about drugs.

Thank you for bothering to reply about those. I was going to but I was a bit dissapointed from his part. I spent so much effort going through all those links and all I get in response is a half-assed post.

Wiki answers and Yahoo answers are great sources. Would definetly use them on my history essays.

It is certainly better then no links or citations at all.

To be honest, for forum discussions i cant be arsed using sources, 2 much effort.

I honestly belive this is bullshit. If you create a thread about the Wehrmacht you better prepare your ass for the shit storm. Can't just try to espace by saying "oh I couldn't be assed to bring proof/evidence".

[Archduke Sven]

Wiki answers and Yahoo answers are great sources. Would definetly use them on my history essays.

It is certainly better then no links or citations at all.

Actually using citations from those websites would do you more harm than good in exams, atleast in IB exams.

To be honest, for forum discussions i cant be arsed using sources, 2 much effort.

I honestly belive this is bullshit. If you create a thread about the Wehrmacht you better prepare your ass for the shit storm. Can't just try to espace by saying "oh I couldn't be assed to bring proof/evidence".
[/quote]

Ok, i will do my best to cite my sources from my books and websites from now on if i must, but i wont go to a library and find the books for the information i've read before just to post it here, that's something i do for real schoolwork.

[Johan]

Well, I'd honestly love to have a nice discussion about World War II here. I really do.

[Jelly]

If the Wehrmacht could 360, they would've won the war.

[Prince_Eugen]

The main superiority of Wehrmacht, that in war they invented new tactics, and rather old British and Soviet war tactics couldnt resist it, but when Allies learnt from their mistakes, and took many things from Whermacht, they started winning, that's all.

[Johan]

The main superiority of Wehrmacht, that in war they invented new tactics, and rather old British and Soviet war tactics couldnt resist it, but when Allies learnt from their mistakes, and took many things from Whermacht, they started winning, that's all.

The Blitzkrieg was indeed the German's superiority. France would've been like the Russian front during WW1 without the Blitzkrieg.

[Prince_Eugen]

The main superiority of Wehrmacht, that in war they invented new tactics, and rather old British and Soviet war tactics couldnt resist it, but when Allies learnt from their mistakes, and took many things from Whermacht, they started winning, that's all.

The Blitzkrieg was indeed the German's superiority. France would've been like the Russian front during WW1 without the Blitzkrieg.

First, who invented Blitzkrieg tactics was Freidrich the Great, Prussian King, during Seven Years War he attacked Saxony without declaring war and with fast strikes of cavalry and infantry defeated Saxony. So Wehrmacht only advanced it, not invented. I'm talking about Wehrmacht tactics at all, tank tactics, air and ground support tactics, artillery and many other.

[Johan]

That wasn't nessecarily a blitzkrieg. The Swedes under Gustav II Adolf used light Artillery, being the first country to do so and very mobile cavalry. That dosen't mean they're Blitzkrieg'ing the Poles and Russians.

[Prince_Eugen]

See, even so. Claiming, that's Blitzkrieg was invented during WW2 is completely wrong.

[Duuring]

That's the tactic of mobility. Alexander the Great already used that.