Germans, Nazis and SS -- oh, my!

[JoePrivate]

As an example of German soldiering philosophy, perhaps incomprehensible to our way of thinking, here is a quote from 'Steel Inferno' by a Leibstandarte Captain:

"It was those defensive battles in Russia which I shall always remember for the sheer beauty of fighting, rather than the victorious advances. Many of us died horribly, some even as cowards, but for those who lived, even for a short period out there, it was well worth all the dreadful suffering and danger. After a time we reached a point where we were not concerned for ourselves or even for Germany, but lived entirely for the next clash, the next engagement with the enemy. There was a tremendous sense of 'being', an exhilarating feeling that every nerve in the body was alive to the fight."

Contrast that with the sentiment of a typical Allied soldier. It's almost larger than life, yet vitally real for this man and the strangeness of it is strongly alluring to many.

[Guest mch]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>. I'm sure everyone would appreciate it if we didn't get into debates of the relative validity of these various motivations <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alas,....

Boy,this one got O/T pretty darned quickly.

[MadDog0606]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WineCape:

No pun or flames intended to Italians here but here goes:

The thinnest book in the Rome state library is the "Citation book for bravery medals awarded to Italians during combat in WWII"

A JOKE Gentleman, a JOKE!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't sweat it. I'm not hurt. But then again I'm only half Italian. But you do have to watch out for the Portuguese side of me. That's where my anger comes from.

[This message has been edited by MadDog0606 (edited 08-25-2000).]

[Guest aka PanzerLeader]

Doc Brian,

You generally make a point on this forum(in separate threads) that the Wehrmacht wasn't as good in WW2 as is often thought. The idea is a good one, but you exaggerate it wildly:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The nations they "beat" were nothing (no disrespect to the fighting men of these nations). Poland, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Yugoslavia..... oooo. real scary, tough armies. (A bit sarcastic).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know what you smoked before posting this but you forget almost half of the war: France40, Italy43-44, N.Africa41-42, Crete41...I don't understand why you're ignoring some of the facts. Do you feel the need to stand out? Do you feel the need to make yourself a name on this forum?

Secondly,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They lost to anyone that was decent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the long term, yes!! We're mixing the strategic and the tactical scales here! And even the operational scale! The war against Russia was ULTIMATELY lost. Tactically the Germans won many battles. Barbarossa(June-Oct41) can be considered a success operationally and tactically. Fall Blau as well. Kursk tactically is a draw...

Doc, strategically the Allies were superior(better industry, weight of numbers, "general" Hitler...)

But operationally and tactically(Combat Mission), until 1945, the Germans produced most of the best commanders and soldiers.

[This message has been edited by aka PanzerLeader (edited 08-25-2000).]

[Horrido]

QUOTE] Originally posted by L.Tankersley:

L. Tankersley - I pretty much stay out of these things but do enjoy reading/learning about the game and the people that play it. To answer you directly, I picked this name in the early 90's when I was a sysop for a game called Air Warrior. I played and helped from Japan. I don't want to get it to it too much but St. Horridus (I'm sure I'll get corrected on this) means - a hunters' or pilots' cry of victory. St. Horridus was the patron saint of hunters and fighter pilots.

A good BASIC Glossary of German Terms can be found at (mostly aviation terms) :http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/terms.html

Seemed like a great Handle to play a fun GAME (Caps added for emphasis). I've kept it and use it in all WWII GAMES I play. I use other names when I play games that are of a different type (First person shooters, Civil War games, etc.). I left the game after a few years and someone grabbed my handle. That guy finally stopped playing wargames and I was able to start using it again.

I think it is best to say that I could care less about (in the context of this game): Who was better, which gun is bigger, who had the best troops, who was the underdowg, WHO WAS RIGHT or WRONG...I just think the handle is cool. THIS IS JUST A GAME (And a great one at that)!

Awesome post and VERY thought provoking, that is why I enjoy reading this forum so much!

Horrido

[Holdit]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu:

What about the Seven Years War, Danish-Prussian War, Austro-Prussian War, and Franco-Prussian War? They did okay then.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And against Napoleon in 1813 - 15. Best not to dwell on 1806, though.

Your comment about the ****e quality of some German units also applies to the SS, which seems to be overlooked a bit as people focus on the "big seven" SS panzer divisions. The quality of some of the lesser known SS formations was appalling.

[Holdit]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by L.Tankersley:

Ok. I will probably regret posting this, but ... ::throws caution to the winds::

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Congrats on your intelligent approach to the subject. I'm coming in late, but I used to always play the German side. The reason is simply the equipment and the smart gear. Whatever about the final result of WW2, the Germans definitely won the style war.

Having said that, with CM I've found myself playing the allies a lot too. Discovering that the Sherman isn't really so bad was a big help...

[Hamstersss]

Hey, isn't it odd how all the venom and anger has slowly dissipated. I think we should have these rows quarterly, to keep the blood in balance.

------------------

You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins.

-Hakko Ichiu

[Kitty]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu:

Sorry, but this generalization is so broad as to fall into the big stinky barrel labeled "pure bilge water".

Were the Germans tougher than the Zulus who could run 50 miles and fight a battle at the end of it?

Were they more professional than the Roman Legions that conquered most of the known world?

Were they better soldiers than the IDF, which has won four full-scale wars against enemies with a combined population 40 times greater?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say you're right about the generalization here; maybe a little harsh, but right. Still, it's hard to not make at least some generalizations without turning a post into a twenty page essay. Could every single Zulu run 50 miles and fight? Is every single member of the IDF a great soldier? I doubt it.

As for the rest of this topic, I prefer to play the German side, although I also play all the other sides too, for reasons that a lot of people have mentioned already.

They're underdogs. The same reason I've always been a fan of the Boston Red Sox and Miami Dolphins in sports; they come close but never win it all. As for liking to play the SS (when I SS I'm referring to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 9th, 10th, and 12th SS Panzer Divisions) in the game, it's because they are arguably some of the best units ever produced. They fought under adverse conditions ususally outnumbered and if they didn't prevail always gave a good showing of themselves. They were the elite units of the German army. That's also why I prefer to play the South in Civil War games, like to play American and British Airborne in CM, and I would play the US Marines and IDF if there was a Pacific and Israeli version of CM.

The last, albeit the the least influencing reason (I'm not even consciously aware that it IS an influence but might be) why I prefer the Germans in the game is that my grandmother's last name is von Bielefeldt and all the male von Bielefeldts were officers in the Prussian army up to and including WWI until my grandparents moved to the US around 1925.

But be that as it may, it IS a game, even if it's based on historical events, and so none of it really matters. If a real war was to somehow break out between the United States and Germany tomorrow I wouldn't be Jane Fonda and go pose on a missle for the Germans. See what I mean?

[Kitty]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian:

This is an excellent point. The German Armed Forces of WWII did have good units, but in general, they were not effective.

The nations they "beat" were nothing (no disrespect to the fighting men of these nations). Poland, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Yugoslavia..... oooo. real scary, tough armies. (A bit sarcastic).

In effect, Germany beat up a bunch of really disorganized, and ineffective countries.

They ran into trouble when they went into the USSR.

You have to keep that in persepctive when you talk about "the skilled German Army." They lost to anyone that was decent.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Know any WWII veterans? If you do go talk to them and let them tell you how "ineffective" the Germans were.

[Kitty]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka PanzerLeader:

Tactically the Germans won many battles. Barbarossa(June-Oct41) can be considered a success operationally and tactically. Fall Blau as well. Kursk tactically is a draw...

B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You forgot Kharkov.

[Gregory Deych]

Specter,

The late start issue is a myth,a red herring, a complete non-entity! In may of 1941, the rains did not stop untill the end of the month. At best, the Germans may have gained 2-3 weeks. In return, they would've been enmeshed in Barbarossa with an active front against the Brits in Greece.

[Kitty]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian:

The nations they "beat" were nothing (no disrespect to the fighting men of these nations). Poland, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Yugoslavia..... oooo. real scary, tough armies. (A bit sarcastic).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sheesh. The Poles weren't tough? You try charging armored vehicles and machine guns on horseback and tell me that doesn't take any courage.

[vimes]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I always find it amusing when certian bad documetaries, or newscasts mention some German attack in WWII stating... "The Nazi's invaded France in..."... It wasn't the Nazi's who invaded, it was the GERMAN ARMY that invaded!!! I bet only 1% of those who invaded France in 1940 were actually a part of the Nazi party! You don't say that the Democrats landed troops in North Africa in 1942, you say that the Americans landed troops in North Africa in 1942! Many people assume German=Nazi, even that SS=Nazi (not ALWAYS so).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have observed the same statements concerning the Russians, were some people state that all Russians were/are communists. Often it’s very hard to let statements like that flyby.

[Hamstersss]

Guys, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany were totalitarian states. One party ruled them, the Nazis in one case, the Communists in another. Let's not pretend like these just happened to be the governments in power at the time.

------------------

You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins.

-Hakko Ichiu

[Kitty]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

Guys, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany were totalitarian states. One party ruled them, the Nazis in one case, the Communists in another. Let's not pretend like these just happened to be the governments in power at the time.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok. Your point being?

[Hamstersss]

I assume, Kitty, that you posted this without refreshing and therefor missed the post it was in response to.

In case this is not true, for further explanation, my point was that you cannot pretend like political parties in totalitarian states are a matter of personal choice or that the armed forces were not an extension of them, as that is what a totalitarian state is all about. This is in direct contrast with a republic or democracy.

------------------

You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins.

-Hakko Ichiu

[BasilD]

Probably better off staying out of this one, but its an interesting thread and has remained by and large unvitrolic. So I'll throw in my opinions.

The German army was the most well-organized, best led, and best equipped army of the war. But as pure warriors, I think the crown goes unequivocably to the Russians, they were heart and soul going to fight to the last man, and the whole populace was in the war; women were soldiers too in a way fighting as partisans, working in the factories, feeding the troops etc. Casualties were not a consideration, the only goal was to win. And I don't think that if Moscow fell it would have been over, I don't think if the Germans pushed to the Urals it would have been over, I don't think if they occupied every inch of Soviet soil it would have been over, if all Europe had fallen, there'd still be guys roaming around on skis ambushing Germans even to this day. And the UK troopers were extremely stubborn fighters, I think Sea Lion would have been a bloody mess and the Germans would have been cast into the straits with all hands lost. And the Americans certainly showed they could fight in the bloody Pacific battles like Guadalcanal and Okinawa.

As for the Germans being evil, no of course the average grunt wasn't evil any more than soldiers tend to become faced by the realities of their environment. But I think

the German movie Stalingrad (c1993) put it best when Otto stuns his commander by replying to the statment: I'm not a nazi, Otto, and he says something to the effect:

No, you're an officer and so you are worse. You knew exactly who you were supporting and did it anyways, and now we all die. The German high command did support Hitler's rise to power, seeing in him their hopes of Germany's redemption after the embarressment of WWI and aftermath. At the same tme I have nothing but respect for Rommel, I think he one of if not the greatest generals of the century, and when in time he saw what needed to be done he supported the attempted coup; paying the ultimate sacrifice for his efforts.

At the same time, alot of the blame for the war getting as far as it did must go to the allies. They saw, to varying extents, what was coming and bungled around hopelessly. When the Germans retook the Rhineland the French army could have swept them aside with ease. When they invaded Austria, much the same, though it would have been more difficult. When they took over Czechoslovakia, who the Soviets saw as friends and allies, they most likely could have enlisted Russian help to halt Hitler's ambitions cold, instead they alienated the Soviets, and persuaded Stalin that the Westerners were scared and ineffectual, thus precipating the Nazi-Soviet Pact, which of course was another colossal blunder. The US remained foolishly aloof the whole time of course, tho Roosevelt made some efforts to orgainize a solution which were rebuffed by the French.

And finally, all the 'what ifs' are moot, much better that the Germans were stopped when they were, they were destined to lose eventually; in the end the US held the Ace of Spades, and would have used it I'm sure if the war looked otherwise unwinnable. Germany would have been reduced to radioactive dust if thats what it took, thank God that didn't come to pass.

Lastly as far as the game goes, I rather enjoy playing the Germans, they have more variety and interest (no humm how many rifle platoons should I get), and cooler tanks

But I like playing everyone, and have played them all in PBEM quick battles. And if you really want to play the underdogs, play the Poles in a PBEM game! Onward brave Poles!

------------------

As the victors define history, so does the majority define sanity...

[Hamstersss]

Bravo Basil! Excellent post!

[Rarg]

I think Nazi German has a fashioned style including uniforms (I love the german helmet design), weapons, insignia and Nomenclature -I dislike the nazi doctrine... of course.

I like to play by germans

[Dr. Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aloid:

Most people don't understand how horrendous warfare really is. NOBODY who's been there wants to be there again. If they do, they are certainly on crack (or some such).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aloid, well said. So true.

------------------

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TankDawg:

Come on Specter!

The Soviet Union had already moved it's industrial core to the east and would not have surrendered simply due to the fall of Moscow.

I know the board will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that this was pretty common knowledge.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So true. The loss of Moscow would not have lead to the capitulation of the Russians.

Cav

[Dr. Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

My statement was a joke, as evidenced by the smilie. Instead of treating it as a joke, you took it to back up your stand.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it's not really a joke. So it's not backing up my "stand" since it's premise is based on facts. You're pretty much on the mark with it. But, I came to that conclusion after years and years of research and reading, and reading, and more reading.

Like many of you, I'm sure we've read the same books. What, for lack of a better word, did enlighten me was the wealth of information available from the formerly closed Soviet (and to a lesser extent, Chinese) records. So many good books are coming out about tactics, strategy, and the war, from another persepective.

A true historian of WWII can step back and look at that. Granted, I have certain predjuices agaisnt the Germany military machine that spread Hitler's terror across Europe, but, unless you read the newer works, we're stuck in the pro-German books.

Many don't realize, that the West wrote these pro-German books, based on our subsequent conflict after WWII with the Soviet Union, the Cold War. We (the West) needed the former enemy Germany, as our ally in this conflict.

P.S. Sorry to clip a lot of your quote, yes I do read the whole thing, but I clip the most important to address, otherwise, it clutters the message baords. Does that make sense? Or is it just a prejudice because of my beliefs? I hope not, as discussions such as these are helpful for all.

------------------

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Dr. Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kitty:

Know any WWII veterans? If you do go talk to them and let them tell you how "ineffective" the Germans were. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure do Kitty, one of my unlces was butchered by soldiers under Peiper's direct command in 1944, but I guess, I never got to know him.

My other uncles, who did survive the war, told me all the time how ineffective the Germans were, and how bad @ss they (my uncles) were. (2 in the US Army, 2 in the USN, 1 in the USAAF, both thearters of operation).

But, that's the quality of German soldiers and leadership in 1944. Was it different earlier? Maybe yes, maybe no. So, the units they were facing across the race in France and Italy, were sub-par.

It's a known fact, albeit some refuse to accept it, that the Germans by 1944 had depleted their best soldiers, and the US, who did not deplete their talent pool, were just better. That's why they got ashore, pushed them back, ran across France, and crossed the Rhine. Thoughts?

------------------

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[This message has been edited by Dr. Brian (edited 08-25-2000).]

[Dr. Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kitty:

Sheesh. The Poles weren't tough? You try charging armored vehicles and machine guns on horseback and tell me that doesn't take any courage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Poles are very courageous. In fact, they were the first nation to actually STAND UP to Germany and Hitler, and say no. Please do not put words like that in my mouth. But, to be honest, I stand by my statement that their military forces sucked, equipment, training, and philosphy. (Same for Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Norway, and yes, even France).

I just got back from Poland. I wanted to take my father their before it is too late for him (he's Polish).

In Warsaw, on just about every street, there is a sign that remembers how many Poles were shot, just for being Poles. Warsaw was also systematically demolished block by block as the Germans left (Something about Poles not deserving civilization was the reason), destroying over 90%

There is an very old Polish saying. "A Pole is born with a brick in one hand, and a sword in the other." Obviously, to build up what has been destroyed by the invaders. Look at Poland's position on a map.

It's like a funnel from invading armies of the west fanning out to the east... they have to cross Poland.

Invaders from the east are funneled right through Poland.

And remarkably, the nation of Poland and people still exisit.

Yes, Poles are courageous. No doubt about it.

------------------

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[This message has been edited by Dr. Brian (edited 08-25-2000).]