1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Why was the German army so strong??

Discussion in 'World Politics' started by T3sting, Feb 22, 2007.

  1. T3sting

    T3sting Member

    Feb 20, 2007
    Likes Received:
    The Germans were irresistible in the World War especially WW2 and ultimately it took a vast co-coalition of the Worlds great powers (along with vastly superior manpower) to defeat the Germans. On many occasions the Germans achieved quick, decisive tactical victories when they had inferior manpower (numerically-speaking).

    What was the single most important factor which made the German army (man-for-man) so brilliant?
  2. saggyjones

    saggyjones Well-Known Member

    Feb 1, 2007
    Likes Received:
    Reno NV
    Their tanks, and their blitzkrieg strategy.
  3. southside

    southside Member

    Mar 25, 2007
    Likes Received:
    i don't think that the germans are strong because they are germans, rather it is because their location as a western country and they are influenced by their location
  4. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty Well-Known Member

    Feb 4, 2007
    Likes Received:
    I remember my high school latin teacher telling me that they were so strong in the ancient times because they drank beer and ate meat.
  5. zerorelations

    zerorelations Well-Known Member

    Dec 9, 2006
    Likes Received:
    Your high school Latin teacher knew a lot...

  6. Truth-Bringer

    Truth-Bringer Well-Known Member

    Apr 7, 2007
    Likes Received:
    You people are completely and totally ignorant of true history. You've been indoctrinated in the public fool system, and it really shows.

    That's why I'm here - because you need the truth.

    Germany couldn't mass produce enough equipment to make their army fully mechanized. They couldn't even build a single aircraft carrier. We could mass produce "BIG IRON." Read the following details from the Early Warning Report of October 2006 by Richard Maybury:

    "In World War II, one of the most famous German
    tank units was the fearsome Panzer Lehr Division. On
    the morning of July 25, 1944, Panzer Lehr was in the
    path of Allied forces moving eastward across France
    near St. Lo.

    Panzer Lehr had 2,200 men and 45 operational tanks.
    The Allied attack on Panzer Lehr began with waves
    of P-47 Thunderbolt fighters, fifty at a time. Every two
    minutes a wave would sweep across Panzer Lehr,
    dropping a hurricane of napalm.

    The P-47s departed, and were replaced by waves of
    medium bombers dropping 500-pound bombs.

    After the medium bombers were through, the
    surviving Germans heard 1,500 heavy four-engine B-17
    and B-24 bombers. Try to imagine the sound of 6,000
    engines headed directly at you.

    The B-17s and B-24s laid a carpet of bombs across
    Panzer Lehr, churning the earth into a landscape of
    craters and wreckage; 55-ton tanks were thrown into the
    air, landing in pieces upside down.

    After the heavy bombers departed, another 300 P-38
    Lightning fighters swept across the remnants of Panzer
    Lehr, dropping incendiaries and anti-personnel fragmentation

    Then hundreds of artillery pieces opened up. After
    them, battalions of Allied tanks came in.

    The 45 tanks of Panzer Lehr had been attacked by
    more than 2,000 planes.

    In war as in peace, humans have two general ways to
    get things done — use labor, or capital. To destroy
    Panzer Lehr, US generals could have sent legions of
    troops, and suffered hundreds of casualties. Instead
    they used machinery.

    Labor vs. Capital on the Battlefield

    Ever since the Civil War, which was the world’s first
    industrial war, the US armed forces have always chosen
    “big iron” over body bags. Big iron is expensive, but
    the American taxpayer has been willing to pay for it.

    A World War II four-engine B-24 bomber contained
    1.5 million parts. Henry Ford’s Willow Run plant
    turned out one B-24 every 63 minutes.

    A total of 18,188 B-24s were built at all aircraft
    plants, in addition to 12,729 B-17s and 3,970 B-29s.
    That’s a total of 34,887 four-engine heavy bombers.

    The number of four-engine heavy bombers put into
    the air by technological pipsqueaks Germany and Japan
    together was 204. Their gadget shops produced impressive
    inventions, but these little countries had sparse
    ability to mass produce them.

    Of the 46 divisions Hitler had in France in 1941, 1.5
    were mechanized; the other 44.5 were foot soldiers and
    horses. When the Americans invaded Normandy in
    June 1944, the entire US military force was mechanized;
    the Germans were dependent on 1.25 million

    The most powerful and decisive weapon of World
    War II (and still today) was the aircraft carrier. The
    Germans tried to build one, but failed to solve the
    technical problems. The Americans built 146 carriers
    in 44 months.
    Laid end-to-end, they’d stretch 17
    miles end - to-end, total US tanks built in WWII would
    stretch 300 miles.

    Wingtip to wingtip, total planes, 3,600 miles.

    At any given moment, the average Japanese soldier
    deployed in the Pacific was accompanied by two
    pounds of supplies. The American, four tons.

    Generals Patton, MacArthur, Eisenhower and their
    associates have received the credit, but it was really
    General Motors, General Dynamics and Rosie the
    Riveter who buried the enemy — under a Himalaya of
    US hardware.

    Washington’s amazing ratio of capital to labor is
    why less than 1% of the people killed in World War II
    were Americans."


    Hitler could have never conquered the world. NO NATION HAS THE ECONOMIC CAPABILITY OF SUSTAINING A WORLD-WIDE OCCUPATION. No population would work under the taxes to fund such a "machine". Also, the superiority of the German army was based on several myths. The facts are that Hitler was being routed on the Eastern front after the beginning on 1942. German factories couldn't meet the demands of the troops with equipment and supplies, as they were running low on almost everything due mainly to the severe Russian winter. Hitler had been so confident of his ability to defeat the Russians he had ordered cutbacks in war production in 1941, this from a supposedly brilliant leader.

    The following quotes are from "World War 2, The Rest of the Story" by Richard Maybury: "A little known fact is that the Germans actually had two armies. One was the high tech mechanized force you have seen so often in movies. The aircraft, tanks, and artilleries are impressive, no doubt about it. But this force was small. It was only the tip of the spear. The rest of the spear, the main body of the army, was foot soldiers and horses. Yes, horses. When Hitler's massive invasion force was poised on the Soviet frontier in June 1941, it was at its peak. Lined up ready to strike at Stalin were 3,350 tanks. And 650,000 horses. Hollywood devotes a lot of film to the tanks, but how often have you seen the thousands of horses? Most of the horses were used as substitutes for trucks, but the Germans did have a horse cavalry division that was thrown against the Russians. (In contrast) when the British and Americans invaded Normandy in June 1944, they were fully mechanized, while the German army was still dependent on 1,250,000 horses."

    No one has ever truly conquered the world. Taking it and holding it are two different things. Even the Roman Empire didn't control the entire world. The "Pax Romana" was a myth--there was actually no such thing. There were constant insurrections, revolutions, uprisings, assassinations, and all manner of violence. There was never any true lasting peace or freedom. It's an historical illusion. To say that the Romans ruled the world is false and it never really happened that way. That's why I say no one can conquer the world in a complete and lasting way--especially a centralized or socialized economy.
  7. ribalisa

    ribalisa Member

    Aug 27, 2014
    Likes Received:
  8. Iolo2

    Iolo2 Well-Known Member

    Sep 1, 2012
    Likes Received:
    Fundamentally, a militarist, Prussian tradition going back at least to Fredrick the Great, and probably to the Thirty Years' War. The lack of democracy also helped. The key thing, though, I'd guess is that intelligent men actually wanted to be soldiers and study strategy. We had a job always to beat them.
  9. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Dec 24, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Wandering around
  10. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Jan 17, 2008
    Likes Received:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    Germany was the most powerful nation in EU, 2nd possibly only to UK. Poland was still fighting on horseback and WWI military. France was asleep at the wheel. It was not that they where strong it was that they took on the weak at first. Also Italy helped for a while so its not like they went alone. Spain was also not a Factor, and the British where also trying to hold on to Ireland and to spread out.

    Germans would have won had 2 things happened. 1 Japan does Bomb Pearl. And 2 Someone killed Hitler and put a real General in charge ( say Rommel had he not been killed by Hitler) Hitler was to blinded by Ego to be effective, and the British used that to save themself. Had Germany kept with Targeted Air attacks the British would have fallen, but the British used indiscriminate bombing to piss off hitter into the same, and by doing so actuly saved alot of important targets.

    When you have one of the biggest econs, and you spend it all on war machines and war prep while the rest are trying to fix themself...your going to win early and often. Not because your strong though
  11. Stalin

    Stalin Well-Known Member

    Apr 4, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Attacking countries that did not want, and were not prepared for war.

    They nearly succeeded in Barbarossa.

    Stalin was at the Moscow railway station waiting to be evacuated to the east along with the administartion.

    At the last moment he decided to stay and fight.


    Comrade Stalin
  12. Aus22

    Aus22 Well-Known Member

    May 22, 2008
    Likes Received:
    anyone who has studied individual battles in WW2 will know that who was the winner is often down to luck. The evacuation of allies forces at Dunkirk was successful , The battle of Britain,the D Day attack was successful and the campaign in New Guinea was successful for the allies. But it could have gone either way.
    The fact that the allies had better radar information did help
    In the end the USA if it enter the war had more capacity. It could build a plane a day a ship a week. I think it would have enter the war even without Pearl Harbour as the USA and Britain under Churchill l were close.
    Russia won the battle of Moscow but if Germany had been more patient in its attack on Leningrad , Russia it could have won eventually.
    I agree no nation could control Europe.
    Sources An Incomplete History of World war 11 By Edwin Kiester,There are also articles on Military History in my web Site Aus22,com
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2014
  13. Stalin

    Stalin Well-Known Member

    Apr 4, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Not strong enough to beat the Soviet Union.

    Close, adolf, but no cigar.

    Comrade Stalin
  14. Stalin

    Stalin Well-Known Member

    Apr 4, 2008
    Likes Received:
    One word proves your snotty arrogant argument completely wrong.


    The US played a minor part in the european theatre - arriving late, as usual.

    Comrade Stalin

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice