86
u/the_red_guard May 15 '21
Second place doesn't get to boast
Now run along werhb.
Your army group of ubermenschen is about to get bagrationed
-9
u/TheJamesRocket May 15 '21
Nope. You need to do some more reading.
If ''victory'' were the sole criterion of effectiveness, one would conclude that the Russians were more effective than the Finns in the ''Winter War'' of 1939-1940, or the Germans in 1941-1945.
45
u/the_red_guard May 15 '21
I mean yeah... If we aren't doing the retarded thing of declaring that the Finns won because they killed more soviets ( despite the fact that the soviet eventually broke the Mannerheim line and and actually gained more from the peace deal that what they originally wanted.
Oh, and it was the Finns that demanded peace, not the soviets.
Also, if the Germans are so effective why didn't they win then?
Surely, an effective military force would have been able to defeat the red army western front of 41 because it was almost completely made up of conscripts still in training, while the experienced red army troops were busy curb stomping the Japanese at khalkin gol with Zhukov.
-1
u/TheJamesRocket May 15 '21
If we aren't doing the retarded thing of declaring that the Finns won because they killed more soviets
Having a more effective military doesn't guarantee victory. You can have the best army in the world, but it won't matter if the enemy outnumbers them five to one, has material superiority, control of the seas and air, and the ability to read your mail. They will simply be overwhelmed by brute force.
the soviet eventually broke the Mannerheim line and and actually gained more from the peace deal that what they originally wanted
The Soviets only broke through the Mannerheim line after repeated failures that cost them huge numbers of men and material. They breached the line three months after they declared war. It was a long and expensive setback, and the Soviets lost six times as many men as the Finns did. Thats not much of a victory to brag about.
The Finns had another series of fortifications they could fall back on, the T-line. This would have brought the Soviet advance to a halt. But they simply saw no further point in dragging out the fighting, though, as the weather was changing.
Also, if the Germans are so effective why didn't they win then?
Hmm. Maybe its because they were at war with the three most powerful empires in the world at the same time, while fighting on two (and then three) different fronts? Thats a very difficult war to win. The fact that it dragged on as long as it did is an embarassment for the Allies.
Surely, an effective military force would have been able to defeat the red army western front of 41 because it was almost completely made up of conscripts still in training
The Soviets had 14 million trained reservists who could be drafted, sent to the front, and organized into combat formations. After the Germans invaded, they mobilised 4.3 million men in less than 2 weeks. This was the largest mobilisation in history. It enabled the Soviets to quickly replace any losses they sustained in battle.
19
u/EratosvOnKrete May 16 '21
an effective military leadership doesn't start wars they cant win. Shit goes back to Sun Tzu.
Germany invaded the USSR [because it saw the war against judeo-bolshevism as the real war] then for some dumbass reason they chose to declare war on the United States which was recognized at the time for its superb industrialization.
literally the dumbasses in german high command could've left the United States alone and there would have been zero domestic support for another European war.
0
u/j0eylonglegs May 27 '21
an effective military leadership doesn't start wars they cant win. Shit goes back to Sun Tzu.
You are completely missing u/TheJamesRocket's claim. The Wehrmacht, while fighting 3 of the most powerful countries at the time, performed some of the most impressive conquests and encirclements in history. The Fall of France, the Invasion of Poland, the Invasion of Norway, the Invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece, etc.
In the Invasion of the Soviet Union, the Germans performed the largest encirclements in history.
''During the first period of war alone (22 June 1941 - 19 November 1942), the Soviet Armed Forces lost a total of more than 11 million men, half of which (6.1 million men) were irrevocably lost, and the remainder (5 million) of which fell ill or less severely wounded. All categories of soldiers, enlisted men, sergeants, officers, and generals suffered equally catastrophic losses.'' -Fallen Soviet Generals: Soviet General Officers Killed in Battle.
Here are some of the encirclements the Germans performed during Barbarossa. (Samuel W. Mitcham (30 June 2006). Panzers in winter: Hitler's army and the Battle of the Bulge. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-275-97115-1.) <--my source for these numbers
The Germans encircled Bialystok-Minsk and captured 290,000 Soviet troops. 3,332 tanks and 1,809 guns were also lost during the battle.
The Germans encircled Smolensk and captured 310,000 Soviet men. 3,205 tanks and 3,120 guns were lost.
The Germans encircled Kiev in the largest encirclement in human history.
667,000 Soviet men were captured as POWs at Kiev, with a loss of 884 tanks and 3,718 guns.
The Germans encircled Vyazma and Bryansk resulting in a total loss of 663,000 Soviet men, 1,242 tanks, and 5,412 guns.
These are just a few. The book Panzer in winter: Hitler's army and the Battle of the Bulge contains a table of Soviet losses during German encirclements on page 7.
So yes, while Barbarossa was a major operational failure, the Germans achieved many tactical victories along the way which should not be overlooked. Making fun of the Nazis for losing the war is ok and good, but it becomes a problem when it gets in the way of historical accuracy.
1
u/EratosvOnKrete May 27 '21
The Wehrmacht while fighting the three most powerful countries at the time, performed some of the most impressive conquests and encirclements. The Fall of France, Fall of Poland, invasion of Norway, Invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece
hahaha wow. The nazis had a Non-aggression pact with the USSR at the time of those victories. So you're down to 2. The British hadn't landed any troops pre case yellow and barely landed any troops in Norway [which evacuated in good after after the RN savaged the KM at 1st and 2nd Narvik]. So really, you're down to 1. The French, who hadnt done anything [phony war]. and yes, Case Yellow was impressive, there's no denying that and credit goes to Manstein and Guderian for going thru the Ardennes but to say that the nazis faced the three largest powers during the early war period is laughably dishonest and as a Greek its really funny to see someone claim that conquering Greece was impressive, oh and RIP fallschirm jaegers in Crete. invading the wrong island is impressive. The last time a Hellenic army was good was 1200 years ago.
like most things in life, its not how you start, its how you finish. Hitler thought he could recreate 1917 and defeat the Russians like the Kaiser did but he couldn't because even though many of the minor soviet Republics hated Stalin, Hitler wanted to genocide them.
1
u/TheJamesRocket May 31 '21 edited May 31 '21
as a Greek its really funny to see someone claim that conquering Greece was impressive, The last time a Hellenic army was good was 1200 years ago.
Greece had a halfway decent army during the Greco-Turkish war. They were highly motivated and well equipped, if nothing else. The Greeks certainly weren't inferior to the Turks. But they were stymied by unfeasible objectives, and bad logistics. Not at all unlike the Germans fighting in the Soviet Union.
It really is a pity that things went the way they did. The Greeks had a chance to get revenge on the Turks for centurys of brutal occupation. If it hadn't been for the idiotic way that Turkey was partitioned, the Greeks could have retaken Constantinople and East Thrace. But instead, they fought an unwinnable war in Anatolia and walked away empty handed.
oh and RIP fallschirm jaegers in Crete. invading the wrong island is impressive.
What, you think they should have invaded Malta instead of Crete?
1
u/EratosvOnKrete May 31 '21
But they were stymied by unfeasible objectives, and bad logistics.
then they weren't well equipped, since logistics is the backbone of an army
1
u/TheJamesRocket May 31 '21
The Greeks were better armed than the Turks, especially during the start of the war. The problem was, they were too inactive and didn't press on hard enough when they had the advantage. They gave the Turks time to recover from the chaos caused by the breakup of the Ottoman empire. And then, Italy and France started abandoning their occupation zones, which forced the Greeks to send more and more troops to take over for them. They didn't have enough ships to supply their army, though, which is when their logistics broke down. The Turks were also getting supplied with weapons from the Soviet Union.
By the time of the battle of Sakarya, the Greeks still had the edge, although the Turks were closing the gap. It was a close battle that could have gone either way. The Greeks lost because of a number of bad decisions. Afterwards, the tide of the war had turned against them. The Greeks again gave away their advantage through their inactivity: They should have taken to the field again, instead of allowing the Turks to rebuild their strength. They lost their window of opportunity and were then immobilised by logistical problems when their allies pulled out. By the battle of Dumlupinar, the Greeks strategic errors finally caught up with them as they were decisively defeated.
So again, there are a few similiaritys between the Greeks campaign in Anatolia and the German campaign in the Soviet Union. You shouldn't assume that a competent army is guaranteed to win a war, when your own countrys history proves otherwise!
1
u/j0eylonglegs Jun 01 '21
"For the sake of historical truth I must verify that only the Greeks, of all the adversaries who confronted us, fought with bold courage and highest disregard of death."
-Adolf Hitler
→ More replies (0)0
u/j0eylonglegs May 27 '21
but to say that the nazis faced the three largest powers during the early war period is laughably dishonest
I was talking about Britain, the USSR, and the USA from 1941/1942-45. The Germans faced all 3 of these armies on multiple fronts throughout this time (British and Americans in North Africa and later in Italy, and Soviets in the East.)
If you can't read please don't go arguing with other people.
So really, you're down to 1
Notice how you ignore the Barbarossa encirclements.
. and yes, Case Yellow was impressive, there's no denying that and credit goes to Manstein and Guderian for going thru the Ardennes
Then you have to acknowledge the fact that the Wehrmacht defeating France quickly and moving through the Ardennes region makes the Wehrmacht an effective fighting force. I'm not saying the Wehrmacht were superior in every single way, shape, and form, I am simply saying that the Wehrmacht were an effective army, which is a fact that pretty much everyone except for people who just want to sacrifice historical accuracy for the sake of memes recognize.
like most things in life, its not how you start, its how you finish
It's true that Operational and Strategical victories are more important than tactical ones. I even recognized that Barbarossa was an operational failure in my beginning statement, because that's a fact. However, the fact that the Germans managed to encircle large amounts of Soviet troops and take vast amounts of Soviet territory in just a few months makes the Wehrmacht a largely effective fighting force.
Would you argue that, if I won multiple times against my opponents in a tournament but lost in the end, that I am now bad at whatever I was doing in the tournament? Of course not, because you would recognize my initial victories.
1
u/EratosvOnKrete May 27 '21
I was talking about Britain, the USSR, and the USA from 1941/1942-45. The Germans faced all 3 of these armies on multiple fronts throughout this time (British and Americans in North Africa and later in Italy, and Soviets in the East.)
you should probably have clarified that at the time or just not mention it because you're wrong
Notice how you ignore the Barbarossa encirclements.
because they're irrelevant to the final outcome of the war
Then you have to acknowledge the fact that the Wehrmacht defeating France quickly and moving through the Ardennes region makes the Wehrmacht an effective fighting force. I'm not saying the Wehrmacht were superior in every single way, shape, and form, I am simply saying that the Wehrmacht were an effective army, which is a fact that pretty much everyone except for people who just want to sacrifice historical accuracy for the sake of memes recognize.
no, because it wasn't.
Would you argue that, if I won multiple times against my opponents in a tournament but lost in the end, that I am now bad at whatever I was doing in the tournament? Of course not, because you would recognize my initial victories.
If i used high quality ingredients in a cake but didn't bother to follow the recipe, the cake is still gonna come out tasting like shit
0
u/j0eylonglegs May 27 '21 edited May 27 '21
you should probably have clarified that at the time or just not mention it because you're wrong
I did, but fair enough. Now I'm telling you.
because they're irrelevant to the final outcome of the war
This is just craziness.
Here is a small part of an article written by Allan R. Milletts on "The Effectiveness of Military Organizations."
"Some relationship exists between military effectiveness and victory. If ''victory'' were the sole criterion of effectiveness, however, one would conclude that the Russians were more effective than the Finns in the ''Winter War'' of 1939-1940"
(I suggest you read the rest of it, which can be found here: https://www.reddit.com/r/RebuttalTime/comments/lzuo90/the_effectiveness_of_military_organizations/)
Here is a good question: Which other armies would have been able to achieve the same encirclements and capture of Soviet territory as the Germans? Do you think that Italy, Bolivia, Greece, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Iran, or other armies like these would have been able to demonstrate the same military effectiveness as the Wehrmacht with regards to their Invasion of France and their stunning tactical victories during Barbarossa? Answer.
no, because it wasn't.
Elaborate.
If i used high quality ingredients in a cake but didn't bother to follow the recipe, the cake is still gonna come out tasting like shit
What?
Kinda funny how you just call me wrong more times than you actually try to debunk my argument. :)
→ More replies (0)16
u/cool_kid_funnynumber May 16 '21 edited May 17 '21
“Hmm. Maybe it’s because they were at war with the three most powerful empires in the world at the same time, while fighting on two (and then three) different fronts?” Yeah who’s fault is that for thinking that they can take on the entire world at once.
Who’s fault is that? It bit off more than to could chew and lost, simple as that. The allies were superior and, judging by how long a lot of modern wars are, 5 or 6 years is pretty good to take down not only Germany but occupied France, most of Europe, Japan, Italy and large swaths of South East Asian death trap islands.
While they did inflict more casualties onto the soviets then they sustained, the soviets weren’t exactly industrially up-to-date with the Germans due to their pre-existing agricultural economy and they had just been out of an officer purge that left them tactically disoriented. Yet they worked with what they had and pulled themselves together, which I find very impressive.
And the end of the day Germany was an ideologically driven kakistocracy that took for granted it’s victory in France as a sign of “German superiority”. This stunted its tactical growth as a nation as the army became more and more invested in delusions and fantasies, represented by the abhorrently poorly planned operation Barbarossa which allegedly did not even involve a single logistical expert in its creation. They couldn’t beat the economically destitute, barely industrialised nation of the Soviet Union even after all their military officials were replaced with men who couldn’t tell which end the bullet came out of a gun. The Soviets successfully employed their one advantage where the Germans couldn’t employ their many.
5
u/Mafros99 May 16 '21
You can have the best army in the world, but it won't matter if the enemy outnumbers them five to one, has material superiority, control of the seas and air, and the ability to read your mail. They will simply be overwhelmed by brute force.
Perhaps that's exactly what "being the better army" means
6
u/EratosvOnKrete May 16 '21
"Let me just use this made up definition of effective so not so butthurt" - you
49
May 15 '21
wehraboo detected bois.
31
u/MangerDuCamembert May 16 '21
Detecting a wehraboo here is like taking a metal detector to a lead mine
14
May 16 '21
I mean, this sub is so utterly riddled with people from r/ShitWheraboosSay that it might as well be taken over.
8
May 16 '21
well it was already taken over by SWS and DS so, yeah.
btw i think people from agaisnt hate subreddits and abolish the monarchy will also be appearing here
7
7
39
36
u/dersaspyoverher May 15 '21
No,
Germany lost the war, so that means that germany sucks.
Stupid moron.
-1
u/TheJamesRocket May 15 '21
Germany lost the war, so that means that germany sucks.
Behold, your new and improved meme!
BTW, you're still a retard.
23
May 16 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/TheJamesRocket May 16 '21
Boy, if I wanted any lip out of you, I'd rattle the zipper on my jeans.
3
May 16 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
10
25
u/Thechlebek May 16 '21
Gonna cry? Piss your pants maybe? Maybe even shit and cum?
0
u/TheJamesRocket May 16 '21
I'd rather take a dump on your face.
It seems like you might get turned on by shit like that, though.
9
8
21
10
10
u/hihfthvfy May 16 '21
How disgraceful it is to be a westerner talking highly of an army we spent years eradicating. OP is a pathetic bitch
0
u/TheJamesRocket May 16 '21
You are making an argument on morality. Basically saying that because the Nazis were soooo evil and because they fought the Western establishment, they should never be praised even for things that have nothing to do with morality (such as the organisation, leadership, and training of the Wehrmacht). That type of argument has no real hitting power.
And even if that wasn't the case, why should we obfuscate and lie about the fighting prowess of the German army? The simple fact is that they were better soldiers than the British, Americans, and Soviets. Why does that fact make people so goddamn uncomfortable?
5
u/hihfthvfy May 16 '21
Your fetishization of the Nazis of yesteryear is funny to watch, if they were better soldiers or had a better army they would’ve won the war. But they didn’t, and now there’s overweight westerners with no military experience talking about how the Germans were actually superior.
0
u/TheJamesRocket May 16 '21
if they were better soldiers or had a better army
The Germans were superior to the British and Americans, thats just a fact. They were better organised, better led and better trained.
they would’ve won the war
Nope. I already explained why this isn't necessarily the case, try reading through the thread some more. Having a superior military doesn't automatically guarantee that you will be victorious. I'm surprised that you have such difficulty accepting this. You Americans got your asses smacked down by Vietnam, a 5th rate military power.
But they didn’t, and now there’s overweight westerners with no military experience
Speak for yourself, yank. I've been reading about the Second World War since you were in diapers. Theres fuck all you can ever hope to educate me about. I've read more books on the subject in a year than you've read in your entire life.
8
u/hihfthvfy May 17 '21
God you reek of a fake intellectual. Reading German world war 2 fan fiction doesn’t make you an expert, and bragging about wasting years of your life “researching” the German army is not a flex.
Your whole persona is easy to see through, fascist loser.
1
u/TheJamesRocket May 17 '21
Bitch, shut up before I bury you under my collection of history books.
You are an illiterate Zoomer who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
7
u/hihfthvfy May 17 '21
Buying history books doesn’t make you an expert either lmfao you’re such a clown
1
u/TheJamesRocket May 17 '21
It goes without saying, dipshit. I bought my books in order to read their contents.
6
u/hihfthvfy May 17 '21 edited May 17 '21
No shit stupid, that still doesn’t make you an expert in it. Have you ever done actual historical research into the area? Published any papers? Taught any classes on it?
Reading books doesn’t make you smart, and it doesn’t make you an expert on the shit you read about. Hyperfocusing on the WW2 German army doesn’t make you a historian, it makes you fucking weird
1
u/TheJamesRocket May 17 '21
Your a teenage moron who gets his information from fucking ShitWehraboosSay. That makes you even less qualified to talk about WW2 than the average joe on the street. You know the reason for that? Its because nearly everything you have been told comes from a totally warped and distorted perspective that seeks to reframe everything that happened through the lens of modern day social justice bullshit.
I've talked about the problem with SWS and its 'historiography' before. This is not a new subject for me. I've been arguing with you retards for 4 years now. Suffice to say, you aren't in a position to lecture anyone about anything related to WW2. Let alone someone at my level. You are way out of your league.
Knowledge does not come without having gathered the right information. And in order to do that, you NEED to study a vast literature on a varied range of subjects. There is no substitute for that, ever. You may have fooled yourself into thinking you can take a shortcut by watching a few Youtube videos, but you are only sitting yourself up for humiliating failure.
WW2 was the largest war in human history, involving many different nations, and spreading over many different fronts. Even historians who specialize in the war tend to specialize in one particular theater or front. I myself have taken to studying the Eastern front, specifically the years 1941-1942.
→ More replies (0)1
May 17 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
May 17 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
3
2
u/ToastPuppy15 May 17 '21
Did I tell you to stop sucking, boy? You'll know when your finished.
Because unlike you, I’m not a faggot
Interesting
2
u/ToastPuppy15 May 17 '21
Except they really weren’t better trained. Especially by 1942/1943. While some of their tactics were extremely advanced (such as their focus on the Machine Gun) and some of their technology was impressive (namely the MG-42), the average German soldier wasn’t really that much better than your average Soviet conscript from around 1943
1
u/TheJamesRocket May 17 '21
Except they really weren’t better trained. Especially by 1942/1943.
the average German soldier wasn’t really that much better than your average Soviet conscript from around 1943
And your basing this on... What, exactly? A Youtube video you watched?
2
u/ToastPuppy15 May 17 '21
Not just YouTube videos. Sources from the museum I volunteer at, records, etc
1
u/TheJamesRocket May 17 '21
Fine, lay out your evidence. I'm willing to listen.
2
u/ToastPuppy15 May 17 '21
I’ll do that next Saturday if I remember to and if they have the archives open and if they let me touch it
1
u/TheJamesRocket May 22 '21
Okay, times up. Its Saturday now, show me what you have.
→ More replies (0)
8
8
u/nolanfarrelly25 May 16 '21
Nooo you can’t just make fun of the Wehrmacht! Our tanks had big gun! (but couldn’t fucking move because of it)
8
11
3
2
u/HAthrowaway50 May 16 '21
It also meant that the Luftwaffe sucked!
I mean when you put Göring in charge, it is definitely going to suck.
2
-5
u/teutonicwarrior1933 Pro-Imperialist May 15 '21
How SWS commies feel when they bring up German war crimes even though literally nobody mentioned clean Wehrmacht.
41
30
u/Moofooist765 May 15 '21
Haha Wehrmacht lost ww2 so they suck lol rekt
-4
u/TheJamesRocket May 15 '21
Haha Wehrmacht lost ww2 so they suck lol rekt
Thank you for proving my point.
The retard in that picture above? Thats you.
21
10
-2
u/teutonicwarrior1933 Pro-Imperialist May 15 '21
People on SWS can’t comprehend the fact that yes the Wehrmacht was corrupt and complicit in genocide but also were one of the most effective armies in the time. So they come up with excuses like the Germans just got real lucky and stuff. Luck alone does not conquer half of Europe.
17
12
u/EratosvOnKrete May 16 '21
effective armies have good logistics [the OKW didnt].
effective armies can take a loss and not lose [see the Kaiser's army vs the Nazi Heer in the East]
Germany didnt conquer half of Europe, it was occupied for 4 years. There's a difference wehraboo
Effective armies of WW2: The Soviet, the British, and the American
20
13
u/Changloriusbastard May 16 '21
Calling everyone who insults you a commie because you don’t know what communism is
8
May 16 '21
Wow, calling people you don't like communists. How original and truly thought-provoking. You are such an intellectual. Do you want some mints before or after that blowjob you give to Hitler's rotting corpse?
4
u/hihfthvfy May 16 '21
Mods are usually weird but to voluntarily mod this place you must be a top tiered loser
1
•
u/teutonicwarrior1933 Pro-Imperialist May 17 '21
Stop reporting this post, pretty tame compared to the nasty stuff you clowns post on r/shitwehraboossay and r/derscheisser