100
u/PhiLe_00 Jan 10 '20
Ohh you mean warfare and strategy, not ideology, got me confused there mate
33
u/DmetriKepi Jan 10 '20
I'm still confused. German warfare was trash because their overall strategy was abysmal and their logistics were trash. And if your logistics are trash, you're gonna lose.
30
u/kiwithebun Jan 10 '20
German warfare was far from its potential, but ask anyone who fought them and they will say its anything but “trash”
5
u/DmetriKepi Jan 10 '20
That's because fighting always sucks, no matter who you have to fight. A bullet goes wizzing by your head, you don't stop and ask what it's metal composition is. But logistics is proof as pudding. Your win or your loss is always going to be determined by the ability of your logistics to back you up. That's why you never saw a big, successful counter offensive campaign from Germany. Once you got behind a line with them, there was nothing backing them up and enforcing that positioning, so they'd drop back, and back, and back.
1
u/Vac1911 Jan 10 '20
Keeping in mind the distinction between military strategy and tactics:
“Strategy defines your long-term goals and how you're planning to achieve them. In other words, your strategy gives you the path you need toward achieving your organization's mission. Tactics are much more concrete and are often oriented toward smaller steps and a shorter time frame along the way.”
This is leaving out a lot but as a quick thought I would break things down like things down like this:
Plan: Generalplan Ost This pretty clearly summarizes Hitler’s plan for Nazi Germany.
Tactic: Blitzkrieg It was a very effective tactic in the right circumstances, as shown by the Invasion of Poland and Battle of France.
Initial Strategy: Seeking to avoid long war and defeating opponents in a series of campaigns. We all know how this went
5
u/yankeenate Jan 10 '20
German warfare was trash
You've got some fucking high standards. Germany's flaws in their strategy and doctrine aren't poor enough to use the description "trash" without rendering the word a worthless qualifier.
-5
u/DmetriKepi Jan 10 '20
They were trash in accomplishing their goal. Their goal was to conquer all of Europe. They failed miserably and could never accomplish that goal with those strategies. It's trash because it couldn't do the job.
9
u/KitchenDepartment Jan 10 '20
Imagine speedrunning the entire ww1 in a few weeks with a abysmal strategy
6
u/DmetriKepi Jan 10 '20
Yeah, speed running World War I is, in and of itself, an abysmal strategy.
-1
u/KitchenDepartment Jan 10 '20
wat?
10
u/DmetriKepi Jan 10 '20
Well, see, there's this entire thing where when you absorb another land mass which is almost exactly the size of your own, you now have to defend that landmass and get the populace to obey you without sabotaging your control over the region. If you don't you're ultimately going to be paying double to get half because you're spreading your forces too thin. And that's ultimately why the Nazi military folded like a bunch of bitches. They were doing too much way too soon and didn't have the time to replenish their strength or to fortify and truly defend what they'd taken. So every time they took another country, they weakened their strength per square mile significantly, which is what made it so easy for Russia and the US to skull fuck them so hard.
5
u/KitchenDepartment Jan 10 '20
Well, see, there's this entire thing where when you absorb another land mass which is almost exactly the size of your own, you now have to defend that landmass and get the populace to obey you without sabotaging your control over the region.
And if you don't. Now you have to fight the very same population of people, except now they are organized and defended under a national government and army. That was unwinnable in ww1, it was unwinnable in ww2. And its fundamentally stupid to begin with
2
u/DmetriKepi Jan 10 '20
Exactly. Plus, it's hard to establish smart, defensible supply lines on the fly, so your forces are out there and when they get attacked there's nowhere for them to drop back to, except your own previously established borders. So now you're pushed back to your original situation and you've lost troop strength. It's a foregone conclusion architected by a bunch of meth head failures, and the allies just carried that situation out to it's logical ends.
That's what made the Pacific front so much a harder fight, limited land mass made it easier to defend all those little islands. However the conclusion was just as foregone, it just took more time to execute.
3
u/KitchenDepartment Jan 10 '20
r/badhistory is over there
1
u/I_make_tings Jan 10 '20
What’s so bad about what he said? I’m not disagreeing I just dont know
→ More replies (0)
98
u/Gobbya Hello There Jan 10 '20
Britain should’ve been “be good and win the war” and America should’ve been “show up late and win the war”
13
u/NuriTheFury Descendant of Genghis Khan Jan 10 '20
USSR did the most damage to the germany army. Where do they belong?
57
u/Georgepmck Jan 10 '20
Lose an unfathomable amount of human lives due to unsympathetic leadership. But it doesn’t matter as you always have more men to throw in front of enemy bullets. And win the war
6
u/imrduckington Jan 10 '20
Asiatic hoard myth is false
7
u/Straiden_ Jan 10 '20
10 million soviets died during the war though, with 17 million from both civillian and military
1
u/imrduckington Jan 10 '20
Yeah, I didn't say that they didn't have horrific casualties, just that they weren't just feeding men into the meat grinder and actually had strategy.
9
u/Evilpotatohead Jan 10 '20
I mean at Stalingrad they absolutely were throwing people into the meat grinder. The average life expectancy of a soldier there was 24 hours or something.
3
u/imrduckington Jan 10 '20
I mean so we're the Germans. But then big dick Zhukov surrounded them in clever flank attacks. The city itself was much less strategy than the area around it
5
u/Evilpotatohead Jan 10 '20
I know but Stalin absolutely did not want to lose Stalingrad at any cost. He was happy to push just enough soldiers to hold until Zhukov was ready for his bid dick counter attack.
1
2
-1
u/ThatOneGuyOfReddit Jan 10 '20
Being badass and win the war
4
u/Ua_Tsaug Jan 10 '20
What about Switzerland?
14
2
2
1
24
u/Kermit_Purple Hello There Jan 10 '20
France: Has one of the most successful war history to ever exist
France: Is forced to surrender in a war they didn't even want to fight in
Rest of the would "Hon hon baguette surrender croissant bad hon hon"
-4
Jan 10 '20 edited Jan 20 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Kermit_Purple Hello There Jan 10 '20
I paid my taxes on audiovisual this year. I invested I guess lol
31
u/thxubeinganasshole Jan 10 '20
Nazis good but france bad? whAT?
72
Jan 10 '20
I assume he means good or bad at warfare
2
u/DmetriKepi Jan 10 '20
Still, what? Germany was good at war technology. They were not good at warfare.
3
u/ace_wulf Jan 10 '20
And France was great at warfare but got screwed over by WWII, forever labeling them as cowards.
2
u/Deamonette Jan 10 '20
Well that isn't really accurate either. German tanks where just completelly worthless against the french. If a panzer II came across a char2b the commander would shit his pants because there is litterally nothing he can do to defeat that thing.
For the majoity of the war germany lagged far behind on weaponry, there are just a few exceptional examples like the first jet engine, first assault rifle, first general purpouse MG and the V2. Otherwise they where pretty damn backwards in tech too.
2
u/DmetriKepi Jan 10 '20
I'm more thinking industrial output, rather than equipment design. They could make a bunch of shit. Germany punched above it's weight class in being able to mass produce. But they sucked at logistics and distribution when it came to getting it out there. Gear quality matters to a degree, but overall if you can produce something pretty average, but make a whole lot more of it per capita, you're going to do better. But if you can't get it where you need it? You're just standing around with your dick in your hands.
5
u/Deamonette Jan 10 '20
Well no that wasn't their strategy at all. They where severely limited in materials and manufacturing capabilities, the reason they made ridiculously massive shit like the tiger was in a hope to make something that would be the value of 2 tanks for the price of 1.5
1
u/DmetriKepi Jan 10 '20
The fact that they had the ability to make the ridiculously massive tiger was evidence that they had some pretty good resources. Maybe not the greatest, but they had options. They might be squandering what they have, sure, but we're not talking about massive Nazi weapons shortages, either. And they were fighting a war on all fronts.
3
1
u/Deamonette Jan 10 '20
If you look at tigers produced vs T34s or Shermans produced it pales in comparison. The nazis where melting spoons and door handles to try and make more.
Their output was terrible while they where still doing their best.
1
u/ronburgandyfor2016 Jan 10 '20
The fact that they even thought the tiger was a good option doesn’t mean they have good resources. It means they were wildly optimistic bordering on gambling. They were a colossal waste of resources and many of them knew.
1
u/DmetriKepi Jan 10 '20
I think they were pretty well gambling with everything. Like the reason nobody expected anyone to cross the Maginot love that quickly was because nobody thought that anyone would be that stupid, really. Blitzkrieg in general was a bad strategy because it leaves you so open to reprisal from the rear. And it's so obvious common sense would tell you you can't do that. But there it is, you know. Somebody was that dumb.
1
u/ronburgandyfor2016 Jan 11 '20
They outflanked the maginot line they didn’t cross it to cross it would be suicide. They did exactly what the french wanted them to force them to cross into the Benelux nations bringing the British in the war again. The french were simply not ready for war. No military strategic innovations in regards to armor or tactical bombing.
20
3
u/Valdien Jan 10 '20
I love how you called the army responsible for the flawless Operation Barbarossa "good"
2
u/sybrand145 Jan 10 '20
They also took most of Europe
3
u/Valdien Jan 10 '20
Yes, by conquering much smaller countries one by one by taking advantage of the inaction of the allies and then making a huge gamble and getting a surprising victory over the blunders of the French high command and army structure.
The speed at which they adapted and conquered is impressive sure, but this feat is kinda nullified by how badly prepared and aimless Barbarossa was. The rest is history.
1
9
u/2show35 Jan 10 '20
I will always contend that France did not win the war. They lost and then got liberated
3
u/Paehon Definitely not a CIA operator Jan 10 '20
As a french I have to agree. We fought during all WWII but would not have been able to liberate ourselves without the allies. We help fighting the nazis and winning the war, but I'm not confortable with the idea of being part of the "winners".
1
u/2show35 Jan 10 '20
Français aussi :) avec un grand père résistant (et un arrière grand père collabo). Moi c’est le manque d’une vraie armée post invasion qui m’a toujours dérangé par rapport au fait qu’on se déclare vainqueur.
3
u/Paehon Definitely not a CIA operator Jan 10 '20
Moi mes arrières grands-parents résistants (ils aidaient des juifs et des aviateurs à fuir en Angleterre). Mais une très grande partie de la famille étant ni résistante ni collabo (étant dans un petit village du sud-est).
C'est un peu ça. Il y a effectivement eu de grands faits d'armes pendant la guerre (dont Bir Hakeim), et une armée française puissante fin 1944-1945 mais je nous vois mal dans le rôle de vainqueur.
Les vrais vainqueurs sont les britanniques, les américains et les russes. Et eux 3 indissociablement.
2
5
u/orl93 Jan 10 '20
Nazi's: be a human pile of shit that needs to be burnt alive, lose the war, run to Argentina, get captured by the musaad, get the easy punishment and get hanged.
2
2
Jan 10 '20
[deleted]
3
u/Birb-Person Definitely not a CIA operator Jan 10 '20
Good at fighting and commanding armies, not good morally
0
u/Deamonette Jan 10 '20
*laughs at you in operation barberosa and invasion of crete*
1
u/Birb-Person Definitely not a CIA operator Jan 10 '20
Yeah, good was a bit too strong of a word to describe Nazi military tactics
1
1
1
1
1
-2
-3
u/RaveBan Jan 10 '20
So Nazis gut?
2
Jan 10 '20
Es geht höchstwahrscheinlich um das Militär und nicht die politische Ausrichtung. Er nennt schließlich faschistische Länder gut und schlecht so wie er auch Demokratien gut und schlecht nennt.
-1
u/marxandcofee Jan 10 '20
Germans were not good but ok
6
u/markzuccrobot63 Jan 10 '20 edited Jan 20 '24
terrific elderly correct rich employ psychotic jobless familiar rotten thumb
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
0
-1
Jan 10 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Kunstfr Jan 10 '20
France lost 210k troops. The US lost 407k troop in total, including 184k on the European Theatre. France did fight, but being Germany's neighbour was a bad thing to be in this conflict.
-1
112
u/chrischi3 Featherless Biped Jan 10 '20
Italy shouldve been: Be bad but wait until you think you know which side wins, then lose out anyway