Over the years I've noticed that a disproportionate amount of discussions on WW2 are dedicated to ways by which Germany could have won the war. In addition, there seem to be countless discussions on how great German weaponry was and how the (aparently perfect) German Generals really lucked out by having Hitler as their war leader. In contrast to this interest in Germany, there's relatively little discussion on how the Allies could have won the war faster, or the many really neat weapons they deployed to get the job done (the exceptions to this being discussions on battleships and US aircraft).

I'm curious as to why this is the case. Nazi Germany was probably the most hideous nation in modern history and every day Hitler and his cronies spent in power was a blight on humanity. The fact that they failed to conquer their 'thousand year reich' should be a cause for celebratration, not the quasi-regret some people seem to express. Similarly, the fact that this failure was accelerated by blunders made by the German political and military leadership was a mercy to the millions of victims of Nazi Germany, and ultimately Germans themselves.

So why do you think that there's so much discussion on how Germany could have won the war and so much admiration for the German war machine? Is it just a case of the devil having the best moves, or does everybody have a deep seated interest in world conquest?

I think there is indeed an unhealthy fascination with the Third Reich. I say unhealthy because so many people have false perceptions of Germany's armed forces during WWII. That they were the "underdog," overwhelmed simply by numbers. The perception is usually about the superiority of German equipment (which, outside of some tanks is not true at all) and German soldiers, again, not true at all. As to where it came from, its hard to say, Hitler himself did a good propaganda job, perhaps it continues? Also, of course, people will always be fascinated with the "bad guy."

Well, you’ll notice that there is not the same fascination for the forces of Japan during WW2. The simple fact is that reading battle reports from this period, written by the allies themselves, shows that the German military machine WAS superior in most respects (although not perfect), and that man-for-man the soldiers of the Wehrmacht were better trained, more motivated, and more efficient than those of other countries at that time. After all, had they not been, then they would not have been able to achieve the successes that they did, and been such a threat to the world.

Am I glorifying them? No, I’m just looking at the facts.
And it adds credit to the soldiers, navy, and airmen of the western allies plus those of the former Soviet Union to acknowledge their own successes against an enemy who WAS tactically superior.

Remember, just because the Nazi leadership was one of the most evil regimes in history, that does change the fact that the German soldiers fought well....albeit misguidedly and for an evil cause.

Personally, I like my history raw, and not ‘sanitized’ by being first passed through some sort of ‘political correctness’ filter, or ‘re-coloured’ due to misplaced national jingoism. ;)

What first attracted me to the German war machine when I was young was the uniforms. Sounds silly I know but I'm still addicted today.
I spose theres always that bad guy factor that I like. Most movies I watch I go for the baddies (with the exception of Star Wars) and on the inside I'm always yelling 'kill him!!!' when the bad guy has the hero where he wants him.
The admiration I have for the Third Reich stems from their massive war effort and I feel a grat deal of sympathy for the ordinary German who was lead astray or mislead by an evil tyrant.

Were they lead astray for their own actions, or was it astray since they lost?

I think this also is an age issue. Young boys usually are fascinated by cool looking machines (be it trains, transformers or ww2 tanks), and Germany is an easy pick with their vast array of equipment. I don't think most kids have a very clear idea (or care) why Germany was the bad guys. They don't think of it as a political issue at all, it's just a fascination for the guys & equipment at a tactical level. I remember me several years ago thinking it was too bad Germany lost the war already in 1944, because otherwise they would have got all those cool jet fighters in real action.

The older I got, the more interested I got in the overall picture of WW2, and especially the social and psychological reasons behind it, and less and less interested in equipment and "what if?" thinking.

Originally posted by Zamecnik
IThe perception is usually about the superiority of German equipment (which, outside of some tanks is not true at all) and German soldiers, again, not true at all.
Most of the equipment used in WW2 (at least in the European theater) was roughly comparable, certainly between the various nationalities. While certain pieces of equipment may have been better or worse than that used by other countries, there wasn't a vast difference between most equipments. The German MG42 was a better light machinegun than anyone else had (indeed, it is the basis for the modern American/NATO M60 machinegun), the Soviet T34 tank was probably the best medium tank of the war, the American M1 Garand rifle was the best infantry rifle. However, none of these were decisively better than what the opposition had.

German tactics and training were possibly the best of any of the WW2 opponents. But again, not that much better than those of the Allies and Soviets.

While there were many reasons for the German defeat in WW2, probably the two most decisive ones were overwhelming Soviet/Allied manpower and the manufacturing capabilities of the Allies, particularly the U.S.

The underdog, the appeal of alternate history and 'what if', the juxtaposition of fine soldiers and equipment with opinions on ideology and politics, the appeal of quality over quantity and all manner of personal opinions and reasons. The attraction of the 'bad guys' is definitely a factor in many cases, and world conquest is appealing to multitudes.

Well German armour generally was superior to Allied armour after the introduction of the Panther, I mean it did take the western allies 2 full years to build a tank of anything like as good on a serious scale. To me the western allies relied to much on the Sherman and didn't spend enough time devising a replacement. Russia built some very decent tanks, personally the T34 was the second best tank of the war. Sure both Germany and Russia built bigger, but my taste was always for faster and balanced tanks rather than Giants that were slow. Having said that the British use of the 17pndr was inspired, and had they produced more vehicles armed with this and actually given some decent armour protection for a change, the war would have gone better for their crews.

German tactics was at first far superior to that of their enemies, but only in the fact that they practiced Blitzkrieg, they did not invent it as such, a British officer did that. Their later war defensive tactics were good also playing on their superior armour, terrain and so on for one.

As for fascination... Well denying the truth is pointless. IMO the germans DID produce some of the best equipment of the war in some fields. Yes the allies eventually caught this up, but 2 years later (in the tank field) is a joke frankly. Then again German tanks before 1941 had not greatly improved for 2 years before hitting something lethal in the T34. The difference I guess would be the Germans actually did something about it rather than continued to rely on the rubbish they used in 1939 without upgrades.

What I think you forget to seperate is just because someone suggests a way the Germans could have continued the war does not mean they want the germans to have lasted longer. I don't think you'll find too many who wanted that. There are many ways the allies could and should have ended the war quicker, volumes of books could be written on those also. Just because they're not doesn't mean people don't know their existence. Sometimes discussions center around a topic in particular by nature, so people talk solely about that rather than veer off into similar topics.

I don't personally think their soldiers were any better or worse than ours. Their divisions did have a remarkable ability to rise again phoenix like after being shattered more than once though.

What I think is that people are interested in how close we came to loosing the war and why that was the case. I still think though that they breath a sigh of relief that we didn't. Also it could be something of a case of guilt. If we could have done something, hell if one of your relatives (should they have been Allied soldiers) could have changed one or two decisions that would have ended the war 1 month, or a week early, would that not make that person guilty? If say 50,000 people died in April 1945, would you not feel guilty knowing your decision might have saved them? I would suggest that those who made those decisions cannot dwell on them as it lays guilt and blame on their shoulders if they do.

Originally posted by rilnator
The admiration I have for the Third Reich stems from their massive war effort

Yet by that logic, you should admire the Soviet Union, Britain and Australia (the countries with the highest levels of mobalisation) more then Nazi Germany.

Originally posted by privatehudson
As for fascination... Well denying the truth is pointless. IMO the germans DID produce some of the best equipment of the war in some fields.

...and some of the worst in others, and decidedly average stuff in far more. Yet for every discussion on how awful the U-Boats really were, or how stupid the whole jet-fighter project was, or the ill-logic behind building tanks which were difficult to transport and kept running out of fuel, there seems to be at least two on how great the Panther was, or how the MG-42 was fantastic, or how the Germans were unlucky in not taking Moscow in 1941.

Perhaps you should do something about that then instead of complaining about the lack of parity, actually post about such issues as bad german equipment. Because if there's a thread entitled "the best tank of WWII", you won't get people discussing the worst tank of WWII now will you? If people are asked about the relative qualities of tanks and they happen to consider a Panther superior to a T34 (and lets be honest in reality there's little to seperate the 2 if you take the 85mm T34) are they naturally considered to be suggesting that the germans never produced bad equipment? No, because that was not the topic. Though in the same topic you get people suggesting things about the downside of say the Maus, the King tiger and so on, something that may have slipped your mind I think.

If you want topics discussing the problems of such vehicles or weaponry then you should create them. People won't often comment on the bad ability of German or otherwise equipment unless it's on topic or related to the topic. You can't force people to talk about issues you want them to unless you create a discussion about it, otherwise they have no reason.

Again you mistake people discussing on topic things with admiration or sympathy. My advice to you is to do something about what you see as a lack of parity rather than suggest outlandish reasons for people having an on-topic opinion that differs to yours.

I must admit that I agree with privatehudson’s previous post 100%….but I also understand and agree with Case’s point of view.

So then, who would like to start a thread about the advantages AND disadvantages of the various weapons as used by different nations in WW2?

My knowledge of this period is nowhere near as good as I would wish it to be, so I would really enjoy hearing other peoples point of view on this subject. :)

Originally posted by privatehudson
People won't often comment on the bad ability of German or otherwise equipment unless it's on topic or related to the topic. You can't force people to talk about issues you want them to unless you create a discussion about it, otherwise they have no reason.

You're missing my point - I'm not particularly concerned with the number and nature of the discussions that go on per-se. What concerns me is why so many many people only seem to be aware of the German's sucesses and don't pay attention to the nature of Nazi Germany. Sure, the Germans had some good weaponry and generals, and the study of German campaigns is both interesting and important. However, too many people seem to think that all German weapons and Generals were great, and that the Nazi government and German military were totally seperate entities, with the military personel being the innocent dupes of the men in power.

Who are these people? :confused: I've not met too many people who take more than a passing interest in the period who think every last German tank/gun/plane/ship was the best thing ever, same with the military/government issue, most people who tend to think that really don't study the period anyway. You're kind of preaching to the converted really as most who post here about WWII know enough to understand that already :lol: We wouldn't talk about them otherwise :p

It's Joe public who don't understand the differences, they're the ones who need educating, not those who know these things already :) Mind you it's joe public who likes to think that movies like Saving Private Ryan and such are accurate representations of real warfare ;)

I think people here know more than enough about the nature of Nazi Germany and it's military's role in those awful crimes. The fact that there is no discussion on the matter is probably because it is already more than well documented. The generals, well they presumably have had to pay for their crimes in the afterlife, the ranks I would attach no more blame to than the pilot who dropped the H-Bomb, or those pilots who carpet bombed German cities for example. Whilst the role of Hitler's Generals in the holocaust is unaviodable, it's not practical to mention this all the time. People don't mention such things because everyone here or at the very least most of us are aware of them.

First off quotes:

I remember me several years ago thinking it was too bad Germany lost the war already in 1944, because otherwise they would have got all those cool jet fighters in real action.


They were used and to good effect and even had our pilots "bricking it" when they fought them. We acheived air supirority because we bombed the hell out of German factories and they had to resaort to building them in forests... but they WERE used.

After a while we coudl even beat them, in the air using the higher agility of the Spitfire with its tighter turning circle and the fact that the planes were very vunerable on takeoff and landing. But don't make the mistake they wern't used because they were.

Same to with the V1 and V2 Rockets - after the "Blitz" they began shooting rockets and I don't have the extat figures byut I know it is in the thousands on the amount fired.


Most of the equipment used in WW2 (at least in the European theater) was roughly comparable, certainly between the various nationalities. While certain pieces of equipment may have been better or worse than that used by other countries, there wasn't a vast difference between most equipments. The German MG42 was a better light machinegun than anyone else had (indeed, it is the basis for the modern American/NATO M60 machinegun), the Soviet T34 tank was probably the best medium tank of the war, the American M1 Garand rifle was the best infantry rifle. However, none of these were decisively better than what the opposition had.

Half right - but look at it again - sure we had comprable planes/machine guns/ships but most of our military was also obselite take the british Battleship - The Hood best ship we had.... built in 1918. - lasted 15minuites against the "Bismark"

The UK had Sopwith Camles with torpedoes strapped on guarding Dover for much of the war. Sure there was the knwoledge and indeed the arms comprable to the third riech but much of our force was not "up to date"

So as a rule of Thumb the German's were vastly better well equiped in 1940 than any of the allies.

Were they lead astray for their own actions, or was it astray since they lost?

IF they had won they would have been led astray by Ethinc cleansing not by the fact they wanted to conqure Europe, but they still woudl have been "led astray" by the ethinc clensing.

It is a very powerful tool, tell someone day in day out for years they they are supirior and after a while they start to believe it. Mass brain washing

While there were many reasons for the German defeat in WW2, probably the two most decisive ones were overwhelming Soviet/Allied manpower and the manufacturing capabilities of the Allies, particularly the U.S.


German manufacturing was perhaps comparable to the Allies, the trump card the Allies held was the fact they bombed out most of the factories and when the factories fell so to did Germany. The loss of air power over Germany was a major blow.

But the most important thing IMHO is the loss in Russia - 80% of their force concentrated in the region who were not only the most experienced but it was their first major defeat. As Napoleon before him fell in Russia so to did Hitler in the Russian winter After Stalingrad the war was a purely defensive one from 1942-45

Three years out three years in.

German tactics was at first far superior to that of their enemies, but only in the fact that they practiced Blitzkrieg, they did not invent it as such, a British officer did that. Their later war defensive tactics were good also playing on their superior armour, terrain and so on for one.

It is easy to have "great tactics" when you have the obviously superior force which at 1940 Blitzkrieg the Germans had.

I don't personally think their soldiers were any better or worse than ours. Their divisions did have a remarkable ability to rise again phoenix like after being shattered more than once though.

*nods* and at the end Hitler’s personal guard was made up of 12 year old boys from the Hitler youth.

---

Anyway is a fascination with Germany, something’s happened in Germany a new country mind you have got to remember that fascinate the most. But a few points are raised the most:

- WHY did it all happen
- How was Germany able to conquer nearly all of Europe
- What steps can be taken to make sure this never happens again.
- And what if they won

The big philosophical questions like know they enemy and such, in the same way we study Rome and its expansion we study Napoleon and Germany. History lessons are full of "why did Germany go to war in 1939/1914" etc. And as with Napoleon how the society under that particular ruler changed.

British society 1912-1916 1920-1940 are pretty much the same things don’t change much for the people even Germany in 1918 was pretty much the same Germany from 1890.

But MANY things happened to Germany in the space of 20 years and Germnay as a whole changed and THAT is what is more fascinating than anything else.

WE know why the Allies went to war, but Why Germany initiated the conflict is a question that has the answer creating more questions e.g.

Why did Britain go to war:

- To uphold its pledge to Poland
- To hopefully stem the tide of German expansion on the continent. British foreign policy since the loss of its French Colonies in Henry VII’s reign (I think) has to make sure there is no power that is the most dominant on the mainland – especially one that controls all the coast as trade is the lifeblood of the nation. Which is why we went to war with France/Spain/Germany on various occasions.

And then we think, why did Germany go to war?

If you put one answer “Hitler” or “Power” you are over simplifying it, you can (and indeed some people have) written a book over it.

It is because of this ambiguity that people are so fascinated with Germany as a nation in the Second World War. The “what ifs” are sociological questions on what would have happened if Operation Barbarosa(sp?) would have succeeded. I mean we know what have happened if the Allies won (we are living it) so what would have happened the other way.

Ignore the “What ifs” and concentrate on one thing Germany and its changing society and finding its national identity is a promising story even if you take the war out of it, the war(s) can even be termed as a social explosion.

It is natural human curiosity to extend the tale to a different possibility, and one that cannot be answer by “and the world went to hell”

Sorry for rambling but we are just filling in the last part of the history: find a video or a textbook in the fifties and you hear all about the evil empire and its defeat by heroes, sure we won – but I can’t remember the last time I same a 7` tall American Solider with two women on his arms gun down hundreds of “black devils”. Now we are in search of the truth we start to see things from both sides. Just one side has been polished up for years there is only the German side to look at really.

Stories come out both sides just there tend to be more German stories than Allied one. And before you ask about What allied stories: Bletchly park and the code breaking computer. Its just a question of perspective. There seem to be more discussion on the Axis than the Allies it is because one side has really been worked to death and there isn’t much else to find out.

Damn I ramble

~ Boli

Originally posted by Case


Yet by that logic, you should admire the Soviet Union, Britain and Australia (the countries with the highest levels of mobalisation) more then Nazi Germany.


The Germans fought a lot more than any of these countries.

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
Were they lead astray for their own actions, or was it astray since they lost?

They were led astray because Hitler promised them there would be no war. Read Shirer's 'Rise and fall of the third reich' for the German people's reaction after the out break.

it is easy to have "great tactics" when you have the obviously superior force which at 1940 Blitzkrieg the Germans had.

Not strictly true, the allies had combined more armour and generally speaking the german armour wasn't vastly superior either to the allied tanks, for example no German tank and not many of their guns could take out a Matilda II or Char B I bis tank without getting very lucky from the rear. It took the 88 AA gun to do that properly. Their troops may have been more experienced and better officered, but outnumbered in men and tanks they were also. What they lacked in numbers and superiority of equipment in some fields they made up in tactics, strategy and training.

What concerns me is why so many many people only seem to be aware of the German's sucesses and don't pay attention to the nature of Nazi Germany.


Why? Well for me when I think about what the Nazi's did(the holocaust) I simply feel embarrased to even be human.




Now on to other stuff. One thing about Germany and the war is that people only really remember the successes or the complete losses. Rarly do people remember the ties or the stalemates. And Germany had the most spectacular wins and the most embarrassing loses.

Now on to other stuff. One thing about Germany and the war is that people only really remember the successes or the complete losses. Rarly do people remember the ties or the stalemates. And Germany had the most spectacular wins and the most embarrassing loses.


As opposed to WWI everyone thinks it was complete stalemate but the front lines DID move its just half the time they coudl not hold the territory or if a succesful push into Germany was often followed by an equality successful german push that returned the western fron to the same lines it was fighting a couple of months ago.

Preconceptions are very hard to shake off.

~ Boli

Originally posted by Case
Over the years I've noticed that a disproportionate amount of discussions on WW2 are dedicated to ways by which Germany could have won the war.

To people of what county do you point ? :confused:

At least for the countries in ex-Soviet sphere of influence ( read - occupation ) this seems pretty normal for me ... :rolleyes:

Regards

The reason people feel some "admiration" for Hitler is because we glorify him, by giving him too much damn credit. People gives him credit for using Lighting Warfare, while it was invented by a British guy (he probably didn't even come up with the idea for Germans to use them, his generals did). Hitler was famous for his anti-semetism, but probably half the people out there don't even recognize the name Eichmann. And also he was given credit for being the father of modern propaganda, (which may be true to some extent because he was very charismatic), but he didn't come up with all the propaganda.

Originally posted by Boli
First off quotes:
They were used and to good effect and even had our pilots "bricking it" when they fought them. We acheived air supirority because we bombed the hell out of German factories and they had to resaort to building them in forests... but they WERE used.

After a while we coudl even beat them, in the air using the higher agility of the Spitfire with its tighter turning circle and the fact that the planes were very vunerable on takeoff and landing. But don't make the mistake they wern't used because they were.


I know that. What I meant was that their use was minimal, not non-existent. BTW, the main reason for the jets to stay grounded was lack of fuel and lack of pilots. The factories actually managed to crack out quite a few ME262:s.

Hey,

For one thing the Americans, British and for a long time the Soviets were still around along with their equipment and accounts. For the most part the Germans of the period are lost, and thus more interesting.

I where a US uniform to work everyday and am proud to do so, but when I get home I frankly like to read about something else, and the Wehrmacht is interesting to me. I read alot about the Roman legions as well, and Caesar killed more Gauls alone than Hitler ever did Jews, nobody complains about posters not intermingling the two. The simple fact is, in the limited scope that a forum can encompas, it is totally possible to seperate the Wehrmacht and the Nazis. It is not like we are going to pulish this stuff and call it a source ;)

-Pat

Originally posted by Boli
Half right - but look at it again - sure we had comprable planes/machine guns/ships but most of our military was also obselite take the british Battleship - The Hood best ship we had.... built in 1918. - lasted 15minuites against the "Bismark"
The Hood was NOT the best the RN had. Both the Nelson class and King George V class were more modern and better armored than Hood. Their superiority to Hood is shown by Rodney and King George V sinking the Bismarck without being seriously damaged themselves. Besides, Hood was a battlecruiser, a seriously flawed design based on a strategic misconception that Jackie Fisher had in 1906.

The UK had Sopwith Camles with torpedoes strapped on guarding Dover for much of the war. Sure there was the knwoledge and indeed the arms comprable to the third riech but much of our force was not "up to date"
While the Swordfish torpedo bomber was a biplane like the Camel, it was a much newer design than Camel (which was a WWI design). However, the main torpedo bomber of the RAF was the monoplane Beaufort light bomber, a much more modern design than either the Swordfish or especially the Camel.

The reason the RN had the Swordfish as its main torpedo plane was that the RAF was responsible for aircraft procurement for the RN. Since the RAF didn't care what the RN got for aircraft, what the RN got was crap. That's why, from 1943 on, the RN used American aircraft. The USN got its own airplanes, which were much better than RAF castoffs.

So as a rule of Thumb the German's were vastly better well equiped in 1940 than any of the allies.
The Hawker Hurricane was only slightly inferior to the Bf109E while the Spitfire was the superior to the main German fighter of 1940.

The Hood was NOT the best the RN had. Both the Nelson class and King George V class were more modern and better armored than Hood. Their superiority to Hood is shown by Rodney and King George V sinking the Bismarck without being seriously damaged themselves. Besides, Hood was a battlecruiser, a seriously flawed design based on a strategic misconception that Jackie Fisher had in 1906.

To be fair though, from what the accounts state the KGV and Rodney's gunnery was hopelessly innacurate during the sinking of the Bismark battle. I don't know the exact number of hits, I know they fired well over 700 shells though. Tovey was heard to remark to his fleet gunnery officer that he would do better if he threw his binoculars at the german ship! :lol: New and more protected they may have been, accurate they were not it seems....

New and more protected they may have been, accurate they were not it seems....

But then, is that by fault of the ship's design? Fault of the crew somewhere? Poor quality shells or powder bags?

It's just not possible to say who had the best equipment or what. There are simply to many factors. I just finished rereading "Fork Tailed Devil: The P-38" and the author of it spends time on that very topic.

For example in aircraft:
No 2 engines would perform exactly alike. This of course affects how the aircraft performs.
A good smooth paint job and coat of wax could add 10-15 mph to the top airspeed.
So basically, take any 2 aircraft of the exact same model, and there's no way they'll perform identically.

Then you have pilot skill. Those aircraft which were branded death traps (against say, the latest German fighter) by many pilots could, in the hands of some, be seemingly unstoppable.

On the original topic: the Germans did have some darn fascinating stuff, ie some of their design concepts for latewar aircraft. Other than that, most of my opinions have already been expressed by others....

I think part of it, at least for some people, comes from the discrepency between popular depictions of the war a la Holywood and what you learn from a bit of independent study.

In so many movies you see the Germans depicted as almost comical buffons who do nothing more than run in front of the allies' (usually Americans) tommy guns and fall down like the "Keystone Cops".

But then, is that by fault of the ship's design? Fault of the crew somewhere? Poor quality shells or powder bags?

Probably a combination of all of those I imagine, IIRC the Nelson class was a 20's or 30's design right? Which would probably mean it was at least 10 years older than the Bismark. Even accounting for refits and such like it seems likely the poor performance of the Older of the two may have owed much to it's older and therefore slightly out of date design as such. The KGV had no excuse though, it was a new ship, for that kind of ship you'd expect higher accuracy rates.

Mrogreturns

Entirely, rare is the war film in which hollywood or whomever make the movie capable of coming up with decent tactics for an enemy that wasn't exactly useless on his average performances. "Hollywood" reality would have seen the war end in much shorter time if Private Ryan is much to go by... :rolleyes:

Sympathy is probably the wrong word. Look at it this way.

You take a country of 80 million people (Germany BTW) take on the USSR, USA, and Britain all at the same time with no modern fleet and very nearly win the war takes some balls. When you look a little deeper into it.

1. At the start of the war Germany had something like 6 weeks of strategic reserves of materials (Fuel,Rubber etc). After Poland it took 6 months to get the Wehrmacht up to speed again. They had alot of tanks break down. Remember Germany had little access to middle eastern oil or asian rubber.

2. France Falls. A commen misconception is the Wehrmacht all motorised uses heavy tanks to blitz the French. Only a small amount of the Werhmact was motorised. Alot of German tanks were inferior to French an British designs. The German airforce had no heavy bombers and the British better aircraft as well. One of the French fighters was OK as well.

3. Superior German equipment. Another misconception. Only until 43-45 did the Germans really have better tanks and fighters than the allies. Before that they were usually outclassed by Spitfires, T34's etc. Although the Panther was probably the best tank and the Me262 was nasty it was argueable whether or not a FW190 or Ta152 was any better than a Mustang- And the allies had the fuel and pilots to go with them. The Panther was a nice tank but still died to a tempest or typhoon airstrike.

When you look at it Germany didn't really have much chance of winning. Its amazing they done as well as they did.

How come stalin never gets blamed that much for killing Russians with his secret poloice

OK The Hood was maybe not the most adavanced ship but it was certainly the pride of ther British Navy at the time. You can't deny mew that point.

Besides WWII showed howout dated battleships had become: less the floating catsles and more the floating targets.

~ Boli

Hey

No, Battleships were not outdated, they just needed a new mission profile. We had to do this to alot of weapon platforms after the cold war. The problem alot of WW2 strategists had was the refused to change its role. Battleships were still the best platform for....

1.) Fleet AA defense. Alot of the battleships during the war recieved refits to double their AA or even triple it. Cruisers are good for this too, be we had alot of Battleship hulls already in service and adding AA as opposed to building whole ships is alot easier. Bigger hulls carry more guns.

2.) Merchant Raiders. The German cruisers and pocket battleships were a viable weapons for this. For one, with the threat of two Armoured Cruisers at Brest and one Battleship in Trondhiem the Germans essentially kept 100 (CA BB) British big gun ships in continual operation in the Arctic and Atlatic convoy routs as well as on patrol to prevent their breakout. For resourse starved Britain this was not a trivial thing. Given the success of the Graf Spree in the South Atlantic, if these ships had broken out they would have been devestating to the Allies. The loss of the Graf Spree and the Bismark relied alot of the fortunes of war. Extrodinary circumstances do not negate a sound military theory.

3.) Naval Gun Fire - There seem so the a popular opinion now a days that this wasn't all that important, but try telling the Marines that. I don't think people realize the effect of a full battery of 15 inch guns, probobly acting in conjunction with several other batteries, on land targets. Air support can give some punishment, but it is over quickly and then you can come back out. A ship can sit of the coast for as long as it wants, keep up a continual bombardment all day, and in the case of the Allies not worry too much about its own saftey.

So as far as the classic battleship duels, they were not so much a priority by the end of the war, but the use of battleships period was not. This ould not be the case until the development of missile technology that rendered ship to ship gunfire obsolete. The only reason why battleships are so big was to carry large guns. So we still have battleships, they are just smaller because their weapons systems are smaller. I don't like the current naval nomenclature because it still reflects size, not armament. In the case of America, the largest surface combatant is the Tyco as that is their battleship.

-Pat

Originally posted by Boli
OK The Hood was maybe not the most adavanced ship but it was certainly the pride of ther British Navy at the time. You can't deny mew that point.

Besides WWII showed howout dated battleships had become: less the floating catsles and more the floating targets.

~ Boli

It was the pride of the navy mostly because it looked nice and had been on many good-will tours in the inter-war years. It wasn't anything to be proud of in design or application.

Well, the fact is that in certain aspects, the German war machine WAS superior, as others have already mentioned.
Am I pro-Hitler or pro-Nazi-Germany for saying that? No - it's fact.

One of the main points, IMHO, of history and of learning history is so that we find out what happened and ACKNOWLEDGE it as real fact and not as the figments of some guys imagination. It is only once we acknowledge history and past events that we can truly learn from that and make sure it does not happen again.

You can't learn history from textbooks that constantly sugarcoat facts or are written from exclusively one person's p.o.v. (although the history books do tend to be written by the victor of conflict or struggle, so its hard to accurately figure out the history). If you sugarcoat information such as this by not admitting that in quite a few arenas the German armies were superior to those of the Allies, then you are really not learning true history, but instead you are learning a bunch of "white lies". You can't turn a blind eye to fact - to opinion, maybe, but not to fact.

So I don't think it's really glorifying the Third Reich (well in some cases it may be), but it's simply stating and acknowledging fact.
Another factor with this fascination may be, as others have said, the almost-universal fascination with the bad guys and their perspectives (I mean you generally never hear stories from the side of the bad guys in movies, TV shows, etc., so ppl may wonder "well how would the bad guy see it? what would he/she/they tell us?") and the question: "What if...?"

EDIT: And in case you're wondering... NO I'm NOT a Nazi. I am sickened and disgusted by what Hitler and his goons did to innocent people and I hope such genocide does not occur again.

I remember reading where the winter of '41 killed more German soldiers than Soviets did the whole war. ( i believe that war would be totally different without that winter)That would make the weather germany biggest conqueror. i also remember that the winter before and after was mild winters but the winter of '41 came in sooner and at that time the coldest Russian winter of the 20th century .snow seem to be the most powerful weapon in WW2 and we know who has control of that ;)
In HOI the winter doen't seem to stop german much and also if Japan attack SU ( mp) I'm dead. I amazed that Japan attack USA instead of help Germany with SU. but I believe German had to lose ( Just like south had to lose in USA civil war)

I thnk the winter killed more german soldiers at the time than combat loses. Not for the whole war.

Hitler killed (condemned) more German soldiers than either the winter or Russians.

Going by the title, here's what I have to say:

Nazism is/was a Satanic cult. Not only did the arians (Spelling?)(I am an arian, actually) think/were tought that they were descendants of Atlantians, but the Nazi symbols are Satanic. Lucifer was cast out of heaven with a lightning bolt and one of Satan's main symbol is a phoenix. The Nazi eagle resembles a phoenix-style bird and the Waffen SS weird S's resemble lightning bolts. Also what about that Nazi castle on the "crossroads of German power" or whatever it was called, and the meetings of the Nazi officers on the ancient Germanic pagan symbol the black sun. When you kill that many people, including the Jews, and your own "superior" race(and keep your message of superiority straight), the devil has done something.

Posting again, my current post number was 6^6. Isn't odd that my post about Nazi Satanism was number 66^?

:satan:

but never fear, :jesus: is hear!

And yet the regime also played on and used christian motifs and other religious symbols. The swastika for example is seen in some churches that predate Hitler by centuries in europe and I believe also means something in one of the eastern religions.

You might want to read this:

Hitler and religion (http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm)

An example being:

The Nazi regime forced the German soldiers to wear religious symbols such as the swastika and they placed religious sayings on military gear. An example here is this German army belt buckle (I believe my Opa had one) which reads “Gott Mit Uns”. For those of you who do not speak German it is translated as “God With Us”.

Now personally speaking I don't consider him to have been a christian in anything other than name, and I also do not agree with everything in that article, the site is also heavily anti-christian, so naturally will find any small link between the two. To say though that somehow the Nazis relied solely on, or were solely based around pagan religions is absurd.

What is clear to me that other than isolated cases none of the major churches of europe even attempted to oppose the holocaust or Hitler's power. The pope was aware of the rounding up of Jews in 1942 and in 1943 these round ups occurred outside the vatican, the Roman Catholic church did and said nothing. The protestant churches of europe as a group did and said nothing. If the devil was leading hitler by the nose, then the churches were following behind meekly unwilling to risk their lives or their wealth for the morality they claimed to represent. Isolated groups of relgious people did what they could, when they could, they should be applauded. As organised religions though they were appalingly silent.

After all, Luther himself, founder of the Protestant reformation was almost as anti-jewish as Hitler. :p

I thought that Hitler wanted his own religion or some sort of divine obediance from his arian race (Sorry can't spell).

I don't have sympathy for the 'Devil' but I do respect the young men who died. The young soldiers who fought for what they believed to be right. We must remeber, even though we considered ourselves the 'good-guys' and them the 'bad-guys', that they were also young men being sent off to fight a war just like our young men. We can't blame Germany. We can however blame Hitler and his Nazi thugs.

Some German friends of mines' fathers were in the Hitler Youth. Even if their cause was wrong they were still brave, although misled. Also, privatehudson, the swastika is a distortion of the cross. Now I am not a peace-hater by any means, but the peace symbol might have a checkered past. Afterall it looks a lot like a cross has been broken and contained. Luther was not nessicarily an anti-Semite, he just hated those Jews who supported the Roman Catholic church. The Jews, as God's chosen people, have always been susceptible to Satanic influences warned, bashing, and so it is also easy to hate the Jews. But how often did Luther tell his followers to boycot Jewish goods, then beat them in the streets, then lead to ghettos?

Also, privatehudson, the swastika is a distortion of the cross.

Funny how churches of the middle ages don't see it in the same light :)

Besides the entire point of my post was to show that Hitler was no more using satanic references as he was christian ones. My other point was that the churches did nothing to stop him. Therefore christianity's ability to avoid part of the blame for the holocaust is limited.

Luthers writings were anti semetic, the reasoning is interesting, but they were still used by numerous anti-semites in history for their justification or as part of christian culture. As a religion supposed to support inclusion and be against such things, it's disgusting his writings remained in use.

Originally posted by MattE
I thought that Hitler wanted his own religion or some sort of divine obediance from his arian race (Sorry can't spell).

That seems to be one of the enduring myths about Hitler. While Hitler wasn't shy about invoking religious imagry during party rallies and the like, in reality he was an atheist and didn't seem to have encouraged any kind of religion. The 'teutonic' cults often attributed to Hitler were in reality created and followed by very small numbers of particularly nutty Nazis and even Hitler seems to have regarded members of the cults as cranks! While Hitler appears to have put some faith in astrology and had a strong belief in 'destiny' this hardly constituted any religion, let alone one he was hell-bent on spreading.

Incidently Hudson, despite that website's claims, Hitler was hardly an agent of the Catholic Church. Aside from the fact that the church wasn't the source of most of the ideas that poped up in Nazism and that those which did can be atributed to other sources, the Nazis did go out of their way to opress and silence the clergy. Historically, dictatoral parties in league with the Catholic Church (or any other church for that matter) have never made any secret of these links and motivations. Franco's Spain is a particularly relevant example of this.

even though we considered ourselves the 'good-guys' and them the 'bad-guys'

In a rare example of wartime propaganda proving accurate, it's undisbutable at we were the good guys, and they most certainly were the bad guys. There's no need to invoke moral relativism when discussing the Nazis ;)

We can't blame Germany. We can however blame Hitler and his Nazi thugs.

Yet how do you define 'Nazi thug'? General Manstein is widely acclaimed for his tactical brilliance. Yet he was undisbutably both loyal to the Nazi regime and a war criminal. Similarly, the designers of the German's admired weapons knew full well that their weapons were going to be built by slave labourers being worked, quite literally, to their deaths.

Going futher, you could argue that the basic nature and policies of the Nazi regime would have been clear to the average German soldier. Aside from the government-initiated pogroms against the Jews in the streets every German town, Mein Kamph was compulsory reading for Germans and, as William Shier pointed out, Hitler's objectives in the 1930s and 40s were, for the most part, laid out in that book. Furthermore, simply from looking at the voting figures prior to 1933, you could define about 40% of Germans as 'Nazi thugs'. Did they really stop supporting the Nazis when they were inducted into the military?

Historically, soldiers who don't believe in their cause or support their leadership don't fight well. As German soldiers appear to have enjoyed high morale and been commited to their cause throughout most of the war,* it doesn't take much of a leap of imagination to conclude that the average German soldier had a rough idea of Hitler's ultimate aims and, at least initally, supported them.


*As a caveat, that cause did change over time: prior to November 1941 it was, in essence, territorial expansion and military 'glory' for Germany. After the defeat at Moscow, the cause was most commonly seen as the survival of Germany as a nation.

I thought I heard on a documentary or something that Hitler was attempting to make Nazism the religon for German. Maybe, maybe not? But him being an atheist sounds about right.

Yes I believe the Nazis were the 'bad guys', what I was trying to say was that the German people were considered the 'bad guys' when that maybe unfair.

Okay, Nazi thug may have been a bit to general... I called Nazi thug to be those who instigated the events which took place during the Nazi rule. Such as the final solution etc. SS men and such. However, I do believe that time heals all wounds and that many of those 'Nazi thugs' really do regret the things they did. I'm not saying forgive and forget but most of the main culprits were executed at Nuremburg. So perhaps we can't forget but we can forgive at least a little, keeping in mind that a lot of them were just boys at the time and were following orders even though that wasn't an excuse for what they did.

Hope that made sense.

Cheers

Incidently Hudson, despite that website's claims, Hitler was hardly an agent of the Catholic Church.

Frankly I agree, but the churches itself did nothing worth a damn as organisations to oppose the holocaust it knew full well was happening. That to me is reprehensible, that the supposed moral guides of Europe would sit and watch a slaughter on that scale without taking any form of direct action is one of the things that drove me right off organised religion. I personally think Hitler used and abused all forms of religion or politics that would benefit him and clung to none of them specifically. The problem is that when those same religions refuse to denounce or oppose directly the words or deeds of Hitler it becomes at best apathetic and at worse collaborators.

I personally don't think the whole German people supported Hitler fully or would have supported the holocaust. I do think more of their people than is usually admitted to supported Hitler, but probably as many were either unconvinced or in silent opposition. Much blame should be laid at the hands of the millitary who failed to use the power they posessed, but then again the way that nazism permeated each level of the military made action difficult or reduced to plots.

MattE: Actually, many escaped justice at Nuremberg. Barbie, Eichmann, Hitler, Mengele and so on all escaped trial then, as did many amongst the armed forces and Waffen SS like Pieper. What remained at Nuremburg was a shadow of the Nazi regime, most of it's highest ranks had fled or died.

Not sure about the others but don't think Hitler really counts seeing he was already killed and is now one of the if not the most hated man in history...

Mengele, was he the one who escaped to Argentina? If so the Israelis captured him in the 60's I think.

Eichmann heard of him and that's about it.

Never heard of the other dude.

Mengele was captured after 20 years of life he did not deserve and through no serious help of the major powers. Hitler I grant you, I was merely saying that those at Nuremburg found it easy to point to a higher rank and said "he told me to" because they were all (except goering) dead or missing.

Eichmann was never found, Barbie headed up the Gestapo in the south of france and was a brutal swine responsible for torturing and killing many resistance leaders, civilians and allied pilots there. After the war he found work and a safe home.... In the USA :rolleyes: As did a number of leading nazis, either there or in Europe, their identities hidden or changed to suit. One big example would of course be Von Braun.

Pieper had a brain meltdown, and after being wanted for crimes against french civilians went into hiding... in france :confused: From what I've read I believe he was strangled in his house and no serious attempt was ever made to discover who did it.

Well now I know that I completely agree with you.

Cheers

Oh yes, that reminds me, I also saw a semi-believable article that claimed that the Himmler the allies captured in 1945 and eventually killed himself bore only a superficial resembelance to the SS leader. Rumours persist based on such a notion that Himmler either escaped Germany or died in the maelstrom of 1945.

The Nazis used PAGAN symbolism, which has no link what so ever to Satainic worship, especially sense they were Nordic Pagan symbols originated before they had any concept of Satin as we see it.

Morel reletivism is always relevent. I am watching "We Were Soldiers" as I speak, ironiocally, and I quote "ignore their heathen prayers and help us blast them straight to hell." You may not like the SS, but people do not fight like that if they think they are wrong. I do not look at it as who was on the good or bad side, but rather MY side.

-Pat

Incidentally the swastika was used by many Volkisch group in the late twenties, early thirties. The Nazis merely came to dominate the symbol and eventually claim it as their own.

Originally posted by MattE
I thought I heard on a documentary or something that Hitler was attempting to make Nazism the religon for German. Maybe, maybe not? But him being an atheist sounds about right.

I think that that documentry greatly overstated things. While Hitler appears to have hoped that Nazi ideaology would replace religion as the thing ordinary germans owed their highest allegance to, he certainly didn't see it as a religion per-se.

Originally posted by privatehudson
[B]Eichmann was never found

Eichmann was actually captured/abducted by Israeli agents in Argentina in the 1960s, and was brought to justice in Tel Aviv.

Eichmann was actually captured/abducted by Israeli agents in Argentina in the 1960s, and was brought to justice in Tel Aviv.

I thought so.

Damn did I mix Mengele up with eichmann? :D I know one was and one wasn't, sorry about that :lol: My brain sometimes goes into meltdown ;)

Hey moderator, I am in no way an anti-Semitic or anything. :p

Originally posted by Case
Aside from the government-initiated pogroms against the Jews in the streets every German town, Mein Kamph was compulsory reading for Germans and, as William Shier pointed out, Hitler's objectives in the 1930s and 40s were, for the most part, laid out in that book.
I don't want to question the general aim of your argumentation, which certainly has a point, but this specific issue is a myth. Though many people bought Hitler's book only very few actually read it. It was rather a "must-have" like the bible is for many christians-in-name. And just like those don't read much of the bible many of the "good Germans" (in the politically correct sense of the time, which meant being a Nazi) didn't read "Mein Kampf", which is not very entertaining for most people and also not very well written.

The Nazis had much more effective measures of propaganda than Hitler's writing abilities... ;)

They certainly did. They basically invented blanket propaganda and were the unrivalled propaganda masters of the century basically, if not of human history. Incidentally Mein Kampf was pretty much totally rewritten by Hitlers staff after it was completed on account of how badly it sucked. Even with the rewrite (carried out by several people including a head of a publishing house) they could not turn it into a literary work of any note, it still sucked badly, just not quite as badly as the original. :)

They did not invent black propogands. Some of the Stuff the British and th Americas turned out in WWI would make Goerbels proud.

-Pat

I said blanket not black. :)