Yo, listen up: SC2 needs proper US representation!

[jon_j_rambo]

CheeseHead --- Pick potatos in Montana? That's fighting words The Simplot Family owns half of Idaho & the potato industry. Their biggest customer is McDonalds! Don't worry about offending, I'm a individual who is thick skinned & soft hearted. 20 pound bags of Idaho's Finest are .99 come pickin' time. The best potatos in the World without a doubt, nobody has better.

Psalm 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law and nothing shall offend them.

I'm commanded not to get offended

Idaho potatos rules,

Patton rules,

Rambo rules.

Legend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OUT

[Cantum Americus]

Keep in mind that Patton had a tendency to be overzealous in his activities, and that got him into trouble. Although he was popular at home, he was raked across the coals before his death for his distaste for the Russkies, and his public comments about how the Allies had fought the wrong enemy. As well, he took great heat while Governor of Bavaria for his use of ex-Nazis in administrative positions. By the time of his death, he was extremely unpopular in the social circles which were essential for becoming president, and he had earned the wrath of most of the American presscorps.

As a general, Patton's driving end-run is the stuff of legend in the history, and, although his hard-driving style and sheer bravado made up for what could be described as a "mobile wall" tactic for battlefield advance, he WAS successful, and success is what makes generals great.

I do have to agree with the notion that Patton's drive was through a shell of an army, be it because of the knowledge within the Wermacht that Hitler was not the man they thought he was or because, as was mentioned, great treatment in the POW camps in the states was preferred to getting shot at (or some other reason).

Patton's end run would never come to fruit if Hitler had not attacked Russia. If Hitler wasn't the most incompetant military leader of his time (Plus the whole "He just plain nuts" thing), the other 2/3 of the German army would be in Europe, and the results of WWII would likely have been extremely drawn out, if not much, much different. Russia was a meat grinder for the German army. No meat grinder = very different war.

[JerseyJohn]

Cantum Americus

One of the more cerebral first posts in these parts, good to have you.

Interesting concept, I don't know if the situation can be broken down as neatly as that but what it amounts to is how well Patton or any other American general would have done against a Wehrmacht that was already sputtering from years of Hitler's follies.

Then we'd need to take it further and throw in air parity instead of the Allies having complete control of the sky. The Germans would need to have suficient oil reserves not only for fuel but also for lubricants -- Western Front vets used to always tell me they'd hear German tanks way off because they were so poorly oiled.

Many factors -- it would become a chess game, Patton and an American army against one of Germany's best, either Rommel or Guderian or von Manstein leading an equally well balanced and supplied German army with equal air support ... as Bogart said about the Maltese Falcon, "The stuff dreams are made of."

It's pretty hard finding instances in history were equally matched generals fought each other with equally matched armies.

[jon_j_rambo]

This has been a great thread. Thanks for all the opinions about Patton.

[Panzeh]

There was a rather even battle in late 44 in the Vosges over some old Maginot forts. There were two American and two German divisions on mountainous terrain in foggy conditions, making air assets unavailable. The Americans won.

[JerseyJohn]

Interesting -- can't find much in English about that action, mostly French and German accounts; the links in English were either letters home or of specific regiments in the battle. I seems nobody wanted the attack but there was a FrFrench battalion cut off and needing to be bailed out.

There were similar actions in the same region at the same time. A veteren of the Hertgen Forest, which was in Patton's command and being fought at the same time as the Bulge, had some really grueling accounts about the fighting there and it appears to have been a similar situation.

What I really meant though was an entire campaign or major battle fought from start to finish with equally matched generals in command of equally matched resources -- it's happened, of course, but is a comparative rarity.

An example would be the final battle fought by Alexander the Great on the present day Iranian/Pakistan border. He won by a hair against a skilled Indian Prince who he honored afterward. From what we know of it, the two armies were well matched and the Indian must have been a very able general to stand up so well against Alexander and his commanders.

[Panzeh]

It was a rather difficult 2-month campaign, but it really dispels the myth of overall German superiority IMO.

Of course, you are correct, perfectly matched battles are hard to come by because the key in war is not to fight those battles.

[JerseyJohn]

Panzeh

Regarding the Myth and destroying it.

The Germans, going back centuries before to Prussia and the separate Principalities, had a tradition of actually training and equipping their troops -- Prussia was jokingly called an army with a country. I don't think it was so much a myth as a tradition. Other countries maintained small standing armies and were forced into a mad scramble when a war started; most German states were already prepared, disunited they were incapable of conducting successful invasions but were always hard to defeat on their own soil.

I think that's about all the Nazis inherited militarily, a country with an existing tradition and an extablished officer corps. They added to this by giving it thorough training trough layers of reserves and providing all of it's units with fine, though seldom superior, equipment.

There was a documentary not long ago with an interesting remark from an old veteran, he said it was early 42 and he was waiting to be called up. Watching a newsreel one of his friends turned to him and said, "Holy Christ, we gotta fight these guys!" He said not too long afterwards both of them were present at von Arnim's surrender and the German troops no longer seemed so invincible. He added that he thought still admired even the way they surrendered, doing it as complete units, divisional bands playing and disarmed troops in formation marching smartly.

I think the myth was already irretreivably destroyed with Moscow, Stalingrad and Tunisia. By D-Day I doubt even the Germans thought there was anything superior on their side -- except for the SS fanatics, and by that time most of them were dead, those who survived comprised something like 30% of the actual SS which had gone to large drafts and even contained a large Balkan Moslem division!

All the same, I think you make a good point about American and German troops facing each other in equal numbers and on equal terms and that it is important that we can point to examples where German troops were just flat out defeated -- otherwise we're left with the impression that American soldiers couldn't function without a huge material advantage and control of the sky -- things that never hurt!

I don't think there's any doubt these days that any country anywhere can produce an excellent army, it only requires a desire to do so and sufficient funds for very expensive equipment.

Thanks for mentioning that two month campaign, I'm becoming increasingly interested in the late part of the war, both in Europe and the Pacific, and it's surprisingly difficult to find good information on European actions after the Bulge and prior to the Battle of Berlin. Few historians seem inclined to cover the period.

[Cantum Americus]

I just thought I'd add a bit to JerseyJohn's excellent comments on the Prussian/German military tradition.

With regards to the militarism in Prussian society, at least up until the end of WWI, it should be noted that Prussian aristocracy was, at least in part, based around its military hierarchy. The old stereotype of the Prussian aristocrat with the monocle and dueling scar, clicking the heels of his boots together, is based predominately off the fact that the military dominated the high-society of Prussia, hence the "Army without a country" moniker. after the defeat of Germany in WWI (and the subsequent installation of Wilson's Twelve Points, the treaty of Versailles, etc), the German people lost faith in the Prussian militaristic system (which, by Civ Mil relations standards, would lean WAY towards Military dominance) and embraced different political systems. The removal of the Prussian system also marked the removal of the Kaiser-based political system, which removed the Prussian "royalty" as well.

As well, it must be remembered that, for the most part, the reasons the German generals were considered to be better than everyone else was because, for the most part, they were. Now, I know that many generals in the allied armies came out of WWII shining like diamonds, and many German generals got dumped on, but several things must be remembered. First, the German generals were highly trained at the Kriegsakademie, which, by all accounts, was considered to be one of the finest war colleges in existence at the time. Many of the best generals in the world either came out of that system, or, at the very least, read and studied works created by some of its graduates and personnel (Carl Von Clausewitz, Gerd Von Scharnhorst, etc). The level of instruction there bested anything available anywhere else through most of the 19th century, and into the 20th, which was when many of these generals were trained. As well, do keep in mind that, especially late in the war, German generals had a second enemy to deal with- Hitler. It is very tough to lead an army when your leader is breathing down your back, overriding your orders on whims of madness, and threatening to have you killed if you don't do what he says. Fact is, the only general to have large-scale success in that crucial period between Dunkirk and Normandy was Rommel, and he was the only general who had the balls to ignore Hitler's orders (and look where it got him).

It would be an interesting conversation to hypothesize what would have happened if Hitler had stayed out of military endeavors and simply been a nut in politics alone. Could the German general staff, without Nazi interference, have waged a war against the allies which evened up the odds, so to speak??

Lastly, it must be understood that many of the allied Generals (the Russians excepted) never experienced a large-scale strategic withdrawl, a drawn running battle while retreating, or even a lack of supply, as what the Germans experienced in Russia during the winter months. It is these hardships which tests the mettle of generals in battle, and proves their true worth as generals. The allies, in particular the Americans (but the Brits to a lesser extent) never really experienced supply difficulty, or even a large-scale retreat (after Dunkirk), simply because the allied supply system was so superior. The Allies were masters of Offense, but were never really tested defensively, and in what is arguably the strongest (and dumbest) German Western offensive after 1941, The Bulge, the Americans were having problems until the Germans began to run out of fuel.

The fact that the German units held together in the retreat back to Germany (Russia and Europe) despite heavy casualties and a knowledge that the war was basically over shows the strength of the armies as a whole, and the determination of a proud people in particular.

[Panzeh]

Well I'm not saying the Germans were particularly bad, militarily speaking, but I'm saying they could lose without Hitler doing it for them, which the Vosges example shows.

[JerseyJohn]

Cantum Americus

Fantastic -- enjoyed every word of it.

There were also German Generals like von Manstein who raged at the SS sending death squads behind his troops creating an enemy that shouldn't have existed!

Regarding the dissolution of the Prussian Junker class -- yes, an excellent point. Though rigid and often archaic, it seemed to always make way for worthy non-aristocrat talents, such Ludendorff in WWI and people such as Guderian and Rommel afterwards. The UK and United States also had a social class in it's officer corps, of course. People like MacArthur and Patton were part of it, but others such as Eisenhower and Bradley made their way through it on their individual merits.

Napoleon, long before the invasion of Russia in 1812, advised those around him that the true test of both an army and it's commander was how well it stood up to defeat and retreat. Excellently presenting in the sense of Hitler's withdrawing armies. The were shattered several times and always bounced back too quickly for their foes to exploit the opportunity.

Well, after two posts, as far as I'm concerned, you've established yourself as a senior member in this clubhouse.

Panzeh

Agreed, the example you've offered is an excellent one.

The funny thing is, I think most German military men, including Hitler, respected American soldiers even in the thirties. Hitler, his mind a bizarre muddle, had to voice all his racial invective, but even he had to come out and say the United States had benefitted from a massive infusion of German blood which made it industrious and fearsome in war. On the other hand it was dragged down by an equally massive infusion of untermenchens and in true sub-human fasion it was the rodent element under Franklin Rosenfeld who were controlling things! Sorry if that offended anyone, it wasn't intended that way, I'm just summing up the Nazi view of America.

In the years after Vietnam I knew a lot of guys whose brains had gone south and who said things very similar to the gibberish voiced by Hitler and his political minions. No doubt if he'd have died in 1920 there would have been an equally venemous psycho taking his place -- the time and location was ripe for it. There's nothing wrong with the German people and there never was. Extreme circumstances create extreme distortions. No population can ever afford to become too smug, as the old cliche goes, "It can happen here," -- and much more easily than most people imagine, even in their nightmares.

[Wehrmacht]

JerseyJohn, You should really write a history book or two someday

Your knowledge of history is fantastic

For Cantum Americus I would like to say that your post was great and I hope I will see more of your posts

[JerseyJohn]

Wehrmacht

Thanks, appreciated.

I've written a few science and chess books as an uncredited co-author. If the history opportunity ever presented itself I'd need to do the same as I haven't got any formal credentials. It would be fun and I'd really enjoy it. Again my thanks for saying it.

I have a feeling our new friend Americus has already done this at least once.

[Panzeh]

I do agree with the comments that Germany's military tradition is one of the key elements of German military expertise.

I think the US also had a military tradition, too, particularly in the South.

[JerseyJohn]

Yes, in some degree due to the large number of Germans who came to the U. S. early on, many of them officers during the revolution -- of course there were many others from all parts of Europe.

And they kept coming afterwards, Frenchmen after the Napoleonic Wars, Irish who'd fought the English and had to get away, Italians who'd fought repression along with Poles who'd fought for Napoleonic France ... a long list.

The American military doctines were very well founded and the country has never been shy about adding to that vast knowledge with periodic wars of it's own.

[jon_j_rambo]

I'll take George S. Patton against anybody during WW-2. If you want to go back a few years.......then it's Robert E. Lee.

[Panzeh]

Patton was a smart guy and probably was one of those few generals that understood what was going on. You have to admire a guy whose speeches cannot be aired on cable TV yet teaches his junior officers military history.

Part of Patton's army was involved in the Vosges campaign.

[jon_j_rambo]

Agreed, Patton spoke his mind. Far & few between in this puppet world.

[Liam]

Patton was good, but not that good. He was definitely a high calibar General! Noone can doubt that.

You have to give the Americans more credit than you do. They were a Supply Juggernaut. Their ability was in their power to get the supplies there, to get the men there, and the <medium or economic grade tanks there also> in time to do the damage. They made a few logistical errors but otherwise they made few mistakes.

The Germans were very impressed by the American production. The Germans designed their equipment the old fashioned way with specialists bit by bit. the Americans who with the founder of the Assembly Line, Ford, mass produced items outta all their factories. The Ratios would make it that even if you killed 3 US tanks, you had 2 more comming. So where they lacked in Experience they made up for in Numbers and the US Military find it's quality nitch eventually. They were learning how to create Mass produced Quality Items. Less focused on Armor and more on Heavy Bombers and Aircraft.

The US Aircraft could be called the best in the World 1943-44-45. Ask the Proffessionals. Those bombing runs were hell on the Germans, if it didn't destroy their production capabilities it definitely inflicted massive damage. the US should start with 2 level 2 bombers. IMO Also IT

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

Excellent points. People tend to overlook the fact that we had the B-17, which was the war's best bomber (other than the B-29) even before the war began. It was fully operational and at station before Pearl Harbor was attacked -- a flight of them were flying into to Pearl during the attack itself, adding to the initial confusion! And even while the Japanese were sinking those obsolete BBs American planners were making the early B-29 plans!

As you say, we had a different tank concept from the Germans. German production saw each tiger and panther tank as a highly technical work involving precision and specialized construction. In action they were maintenence heavy and temperamental. When they worked the way they were supposed to they ruled the battle field; when they didn't they became metalic lumps that either had to be protectec while being repaired, or destroyed in front of an advancing enemy.

What's worse, they could not be mass produced. meanwhile, the United States and the Soviet Union were manufacturing their tanks on assembly lines by the tens of thousands!

Beyond which, the U. S. Army had advantages seldom cited in these threads, as you so well say, American troops were always loaded with more than enough supplies, including such luxuries as medicine! Which is why so many of our casualties were wounded instead of dead.

Yeah, we had control of the air, but not because the German planes disappeared, it was because we didn't manufacture aircraft in packets, we manufactured them in torrents and trained pilots well and in large numbers. Germany, but the end of the war, was reduced to sending untrained boys as young as twelve up in unsound aircraft held together by low quality glue -- nobody knows how many went up and nobody knows how many of them died. I must have been hideous, those volksjets were known to fall apart right after takeoff; anyone piloting one was unlikely to get very far, forget not being properly trained, the aircraft itself wasn't likely to last long enough to even sight an enemy! Horrible!

The United States also had the world's best artillery and the best techniques for utilizing it. An area targetted for an American barage was truly hell on earth; the ground itself would end up pulverized by hits from ordnance of all calibres coming in from several directions simultaneously.

Patton and all the other American generals in Europe had numerous advantages over their German counterparts. They also had the bonus of being allowed to fight their own battles without a deranged amateur hitting them with stand and die orders.

Rommel was mentioned earlier as having the balls to ignore Hitler -- and look where it got him. Yes, excellent, but only partly true. Other German generals, such as von Manstein also defied the Fuhrer and were sacked for it. Officers of lesser rank were often court martialed. Few, if any, were ever found innocent of the charges.

For field grade officers and enlisted men there were SS flying squads scouring the areas behind the lines, eager to put a placard around anyone's neck who didn't have specific orders for being exactly where they were, and hanging them out of hand. One of my uncles said there was one sight that really made him sick inside Germany itself. He described it as a Little Leage team handing from a tree with placards around their necks identifying them as deserters!

So, when judging generals on either side it's very important to judge the time and place of the actions being discussed.

To Patton's credit, he showed his stuff in Tunisia in some of America's early European actions, where other American generals were already floundering. He was recognized from the start as one of America's best. Whether he was as good as he is often made out to be is open to question; how he stood in relation to German generals is, to me, impossible to determine.

[Panzeh]

The US had a lot of 'average' generals; guys that could follow orders reasonably well and use initiative. This was nothing spectacular, but compared to the leadership problems of France, Italy, and Russia, this is far preferable.

[Desert Dave]

Yes, JJ, you have hit upon a truly Doom consequential aspect of WW2 in Germany, especially in the falling-to-sinew years of 1944-45.

The prevailing ZeitGeist was one of Evil unleashed, when Die Welt went... Wahnsinnig. ... or simply, quite insane.

Desperate and earth-scorching mentality, is, many say, who have never... been there, a rare and thank the indifferent Stars, an... almost impossible event.

However, good to appreciate, even now, and perhaps especially NOW, that this revolting reversion could indeed happen... again.

One wonders why WW2 GS games are so continuously popular, time and next time? Without apparent end?

Not so very strange... it was surely and truly that one last gasp... for love and land and gold-hordes and... also glory, only, THIS time... that ever lingering, dumb loveless Deamon was... in the fight. :eek:

[JerseyJohn]

A scary image Immer.

I find it interesting that Stalin, Hitler and Hussein all reacted the same way to defeat -- by blaming it on their generals and having a few killed for their own shortcomings.

The fact that such men are so willing to destroy their own country also says something.

[Cantum Americus]

Somewhere back in the thread, someone mentioned about how, if Hitler never made it out of 1920 (or the gas attacks in WWI, for that matter), that some other nutjob would have risen up in his place. I agree with that point, given the political climate and unrest during the period. With the rise of communism, and then facism as the anti-communism, and the unstable political climate of the time (when countries could change political systems almost spontaneously), such an extremist was bound to rise.

My point, however, is that perhaps the nutjob in waiting would not have come from Germany. Its debatable as to whether Franco wins the Spanish civil war without Hitler's help (Its not my area of interest, so any further thoughts about the SCW on my part are uneducated, and therefore unwarranted), and Mussolini's facist regime was never really embraced by his people the way the movement was in the other countries. What becomes of the political instability of Germany without Hitler is debatable, but what isn't is that the Nazi party was a non-factor until Hitler's charisma began to take hold. The man could win over a crowd, and that was the main reason for his rise to power in the Nazi party....that, and his ruthlessness in seizing power. He won public support, and then siezed power through purges and pseudo-coups. From what I gather about the Nazi party, I doubt anyone involved in the party had the same panache that Hitler did, and I doubt anyone could have seized the initiative the way he did.

My choice, therefore, for madman in waiting, is Stalin. Taking a second fiddle to Hitler in atrocities, the man still killed millions of his own people, and didn't even do it under the guise of racial hatred. He was just plain nuts, paranoid, and extremely overprotective of his grasp on power in the USSR. Under different circumstances, he IS Hitler, but with Vodka.

With a Nazi-controlled Germany never materializing, its concievable, although unlikely, that Communism could have taken control in Germany, resulting in the eventual absobtion of Poland into Communism (it spreads like a plague), then the lower, less politcally stable countries (Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, etc). I don't see Greece converting, but my knowledge of political histories of Southern European countries in the 1930s is almost non-existent. Eventually, the anti-communist sentiments in the various Allied countries (Britain, USA, France, Italy, etc) create tension, and eventually total global war.

More likely (in the simplest terms possible), however, is that the German people eventually level out their own economics, get over the Versailles anger, and keep the Wiemar republic (or some variant of it)in control. Stalin, following communist doctrine, eventually decides to bring communism to the rest of Europe, and, as befitting his character, does it by force. Probably before 1950.

It's interesting to note that, no matter what, the odds of a major global conflict are high. This is because of the political situation of the time. War is basically inevitable in this era, no matter how you work it. You could cite a hundred different factors for it, but all of them still point to a WWII of some type. In the Pacific, Japan's Imperialistic tendencies make them a ticking timebomb to attack the US, or a Birtish colony, either of which invoke major conflict as well.

Its an interesting scenario, and one that is rarely discussed. I believe I saw it loosely touched upon in the computer game Command & Conquer: Red Alert, awhile back. Of course, in the real world, Einstein wouldn't travel back in time and kill Hitler.

[Cantum Americus]

I almost forgot....

An excellent point about Von Manstein. There WERE other generals that tried to stand up to Hitler. I used Rommel because he was Hitler's prize general, at one time the head of his bodyguard, and he ended up dead for his proper belief that Hitler had become unfit to lead Germany.