- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How were German armored divisions so much more elite than their US counterparts
Posted on 10/25/14 at 2:16 pm to ChewyDante
Posted on 10/25/14 at 2:16 pm to ChewyDante
quote:
The British and French military traditions and quantitative experiences in the 20th, 19th, and 18th
Meh. There was nothing left of the spirit of Napoleon by 1940. Rolled up in 6 weeks is all you need to know.
And little was left of British ground capability, whether that was a recoil from WWI, or the continued over-reliance upon the Royal Navy - they were little better than we were in N. Africa, and we quickly passed them despite less combat experience.
quote:
Prussia was simply a state in Germany
That's a truism, but belies the fact that Prussia was the driving force in the creation of Germany in the first place. For the most part, they did not merge the armies into a German army in 1871, but, rather the Prussian army absorbed the others and changed names.
Prussians dominated the formal military schools in Germany, combat commands in the world wars and most of the key spots on the High Command. Rommel was a rare non-Prussian in a high profile combat or staff position.
And, of course, Prussians dominated the internal plots to oust Hitler. Ironically, there weren't very many Prussians in the very inner circle of Hitler. Goebbels was born in Prussia, but his mother was Dutch. Himmler, Goering, Hess and Jodl were all Bavarian. Heydrich and Keitel were from Saxony.
This post was edited on 10/25/14 at 2:17 pm
Posted on 10/25/14 at 2:48 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Meh. There was nothing left of the spirit of Napoleon by 1940.
You mentioned Prussia's history dating back 8 to 10 centuries as being relevant to Germany's military resistance in WWII, which is why I mentioned even more recent French and British military traditions to point out that these traditions were in fact NOT pertinent to their attitudes and conditions in WWII. And that if one could make such an argument for Germany's traditions dating back centuries, then the exact same argument would actually be stronger and far more applicable to the French and British. I reject the argument all together.
quote:
Rolled up in 6 weeks is all you need to know.
I disagree with this simplification of the French effort in WWII as well. Their military defeat was largely due to strategic error and a very new style of warfare of which their enemy was highly skilled and they were not. Their troops were in poor position once the thrust through the Ardennes occurred and they were effectively dead in the water with the concentrated German mechanized drive to the coast.
French military tradition and spirit was high, though domestically they were in a bit of turmoil. Had the British been geographically located in France and vice versa, the British would have been crushed as well and the French likely would have prevailed given the same course of American/Soviet entry into the war. The dismissal of French effort or ability in WWII is a common misconception.
quote:
And little was left of British ground capability, whether that was a recoil from WWI, or the continued over-reliance upon the Royal Navy - they were little better than we were in N. Africa, and we quickly passed them despite less combat experience.
Again, I was pointing out French and British recent military tradition and culture to counter your reference to Prussian military culture and tradition, not as some argument for British ground superiority. Germany and France were always the land powers in Europe. Always.
quote:
That's a truism, but belies the fact that Prussia was the driving force in the creation of Germany in the first place. For the most part, they did not merge the armies into a German army in 1871, but, rather the Prussian army absorbed the others and changed names.
I understand the significance of Prussia to Germany's military organization and leadership. It's well documented and established, particularly with the officer corps. My rejection was of the notion of Prussian historical militarism as the reason for Germany's performance and remarkable spirit of effective resistance against what became insurmountable odds.
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)