Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

I'm especially puzzled by the fact that you seem to be saying that all military victories over the Red Army in the early phases of Barbarossa are irrelevant and meaningless. The combined French and British forces outnumberd German forces in every category in 1940, yet they had no better luck against the Germans. Considering the outcomes, their luck was far worse. France and Britain did not suffer from a lack of leadership, nor did they suffer from general disorganization.

No,no. I am not meaning that at all, of course. i was just seeking to qualify 'miraculous'.

I would not wish to belittle their efforts, and i will give way to you,regarding the merits of the German generals, on which your knowledge is far superior to mine, which is only general.

Sorry to interupt your debate.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

HOWEVER, we have to remember that their early progress in Russia was against a high count, but complete disorganisation. They failed to take Leningrad, wherever they passed, the SD motivated local populations to fight harder. The Russians drew them into the same old mud -pit. And by the time the signifant battle was on, the Russian forces were no longer superior in numbers. But still the German forces failed to take Moscow.
Failure on top of failure. Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.
Bad strategy, and the only point I am making is 'No Miracles'.

Actually, by the time of Operation Typhoon and the Moscow counterattack, the Red Army was superior in numbers to the Wehrmacht. More importantly, many of the Soviet divisions were at almost full strength, well supplied, protected against winter and had the advantage of shortened supply lines. By contrast, the Wehrmacht was basically the opposite. Their units were way below their original starting strengths, their soldiers were exhausted, starving, freezing, low on ammunition and fuel and demoralized. Indeed, it was a minor miracle that Army Group Centre did not rout in the coldest winter for 140 years and was able to form a new defensive line, albeit almost 200 miles back.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

Perhaps you CAN remember this, militarily, again the great German fighting machine lost, they lost on every front. They lost right back into Berlin, depite their thousands of unmanned rockets hurled at London. Lost.
That's what I call great military strategy.

The BIG problem with Germany in WW2, and indeed virtually all of their campaigns, is that they did not pay the same attention to grand strategy as they did to the operational and tactical level. They also failed to pay heed to the fact that military, economic and political aims must all be tackled and developed in any nation's grand strategy. Consider that in December 1941 the German economy was still basically operating under peacetime conditions.

The German Army in WW2, tactically and operationally, for 3 years was the finest army in the world and possibly the finest army seen in the modern era. Strategically though it was misused and often aimless, due to the way that Germany military thinking had developed since the creation of the General Staff in the 19th Century. The German way of war is/was a short, sharp, shock, ultimately expressed by the Panzerwaffe of WW2. Where this doesn't work, vs the Soviet Union for example, the German tactical and operational brilliance becomes overwhelmed by the need to conduct warfare on a national level. The Germans didn't even start doing this until 1942-43 and by then it was too late.

There's a good article online that has some more info on this, well worth a read.

http://books.google.com/books?id=9eh...OxONE#PPA76,M1

[quote=Doppleganger;369653]( please see bottom of post.)


Yes, I have in fact stood down from this one as not having enough detailed knowledge, and i do the same again, accepting your take.

My point was only that the strategy was a weakness, and that 'miraculous' was over the top.

I give way, with the exception of the below opinion, which may or not be correct as far as i am concerned. As a pragmatist, I am suspicious of the
'romantic myth' aspect of both the force and Rommel. As you know, Brits love a good loser, usually, and i do not deny the quality of either.

Quote :-

"The German Army in WW2, tactically and operationally, for 3 years was the finest army in the world and possibly the finest army seen in the modern era."

Originally Posted by Del Boy

I give way, with the exception of the below opinion, which may or not be correct as far as i am concerned. As a pragmatist, I am suspicious of the
'romantic myth' aspect of both the force and Rommel. As you know, Brits love a good loser, usually, and i do not deny the quality of either.

Quote :-

"The German Army in WW2, tactically and operationally, for 3 years was the finest army in the world and possibly the finest army seen in the modern era."

Well, I don't see that as a 'romantic myth', though I understand why you might use the term in this case. I base my opinion on many factors, not least the fact that the Germans were very successfully demonstrating modern 'combined arms' tactics for the very first time. With hindsight we can pick at the flaws, chastise them for taking reckless risks, point out the weaknesses of the Allied forces ranged against them and all the rest. The fact of the matter is though from 1939 to 1942 the German Army was, by some margin, the most professional and seasoned army in the world. Their results speak for themselves. The fact that the Germans were so initially successful in Russia when you consider how faulty an operation Barbarossa was, is in itself, remarkable.

The Germans have always been very good at making war and probably still are. They failed in 2 world wars for reasons other than military ones.

[quote=Del Boy;369706]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

( please see bottom of post.)


Yes, I have in fact stood down from this one as not having enough detailed knowledge, and i do the same again, accepting your take.

My point was only that the strategy was a weakness, and that 'miraculous' was over the top.

I give way, with the exception of the below opinion, which may or not be correct as far as i am concerned. As a pragmatist, I am suspicious of the
'romantic myth' aspect of both the force and Rommel. As you know, Brits love a good loser, usually, and i do not deny the quality of either.

Quote :-

"The German Army in WW2, tactically and operationally, for 3 years was the finest army in the world and possibly the finest army seen in the modern era."

I'll leave well enough alone as you've said you're not arguing the point anymore. Just wanted to mention:

The fact that the German Army got anywhere near Moscow in February of the worst winter in over 100 years ... is miraculous.

The Battles of Kiev, Battle of Białystok-Minsk, Battle of Raseiniai and Battle of Brody were nothing short of Brilliant.

The Soviet's Operation Mars was so thoroughly thwarted that Field Marshall Zhukov's central role it in was written out of the history books, the Soviets were so thoroughly embarrassed.

There are far too many instances where German forces did the seemingly impossible on the Eastern Front.

[quote=Doppleganger;369774]Well, I don't see that as a 'romantic myth', though I understand why you might use the term in this case.


Let me qualify my point. i am not claiming that it is 'a romantic myth' at all. I only questioned 'the aspect of romantic myth' involved. Whereby the description of some great exploit takes on claims of, say, 'miracles', as in this particular case.

I would have to take on a great deal research time and trouble to challenge the case you put forward, which i am sure is a good one and I am no military expert. Political issues are another matter.

So I am happy to leave you with my reservations and stand aside.


I hope this post will suffice also for godofthunder. It has been a pleasure to do business with both of you!

ErwIn Rommel wins. enough said! he is one of the greatest. period.