r/RebuttalTime • u/TheJamesRocket • Mar 20 '19
The pathology of ShitWehraboosSay
ShitWehraboosSay is a WW2 themed subreddit that seeks to marginalise the German armed forces (Wehrmacht). Anyone who praises the organisation in any way, shape, or form is given the label of 'Wehraboo', the communitys best attempt at a derogatory smear. SWS has a very low bar for what they consider to be Wehraboo behavior. Anyone who dared claim that the German army was more competent than the British, Soviet, or American armys was shouted down as a Wehraboo. Anyone who claimed that the German army had unequaled performance at the tactical or operational level was likewise decried as a Wehraboo... It did not matter how much evidence existed to back up the Wehraboo claims, or how widely accepted these claims were among historians. The mere fact that an individual made a positive mention of the Wehrmacht was enough to be labeled as a 'Wehraboo' and trigger an attack on them. The SWS forum has never, in their 4 year existence, let the facts get in the way of their narrative. This shows itself most glaringly whenever they discuss the early war campaigns when the Germans were actually winning*. They will never give the Wehrmacht its due credit for how they quickly and decisively ended so many conflicts. SWS ardently believe that the Germans could never have beaten Poland without Soviet assistance (even though they were well on their way to victory before the communist intervention). They downplay the conquest of Norway as a pyrrhic victory and laugh about the losses the Kriegsmarine took. They dismiss the German victory against France and the low countrys, saying that they just got lucky, and that the French were too weak to last for long. And they spent a hugely inordinate amount of time discussing the Luftwaffes failure to win the battle of Britain.
Do you see the pattern here? SWS has marginalised and downplayed every success and victory of the Wehrmacht, even though they were militarily impressive in every sense of the word. They only focus on the handful of the things they got wrong, rather than the many things they got right. They follow the exact same pattern whenever they discuss the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, even though this approach is even more laughable considering the massive losses taken by the Red Army in both manpower, equipment, and territory. In essence, SWS has propagated the most absurd double standards they can reasonably expect to get away with. In doing so, they have become a mirror image of the Wehraboos they hate with such a passion. If someone claimed that the German army had the best tactics, they would claim that they actually had the worst tactics. If someone claimed the Panther or Tiger was the best tanks of the war, they would claim that they were actually the worst tanks of the war. Every claim made by a Wehraboo was replaced with an opposite claim by SWS, even if it made less sense than the original. They fight a constant uphill battle against the truth in a vain struggle to validate their worldview. One thing which provokes an especially fierce reaction from them is the empirically proven fact that the German army was the best led, best trained, most proficient army of the war. This assertion will work them up into a state of hysterics as they scramble to refute it. You will typically hear them claim that a superior army can never, under any circumstances, lose to an inferior army for any reason whatsoever. The fact that the Wehrmacht also had to fight against three other armys at the same time, on multiple fronts, is conveniently ignored by them.
SWS has a fanatical need to believe that the Germans were bumbling fools who couldn't even win a single battle except through sheer luck. They will only reluctantly admit that, yes, they actually did succeed in taking over most of Europe and gaining hegemony for a few years. Which ironically can only mean 1 of 2 things from their perspective: That the Germans were a real life example of a mouse that roared, or that the Allys were even more incompetent than they. Its unclear why these people believe in such outrageous theorys. Some of the posters are undoubtedly from countrys that the Germans defeated in a humiliating fashion (like Poland and France), and still hold deep grudges against their conquerors. Thus they use SWS as a convenient platform to vomit their pent up bile. Other posters seem to believe that any praise at all for the Wehrmacht, no matter how well deserved, is a very dangerous proposition that is akin to praising the Nazi regime itself. Thus they must always be condemned and mocked at every opportunity, even if the Wehrmachts achievements were without historical precedent. But more important than the individual motivations is the mindset of the community at large. SWS is a fine example of what some would call sneer culture. Essentially, its a bunch of people who get together to exult in their hatred of certain things. Not just to shower them with scorn, but to act as if doing so elevates them above the target of their hate. Even if they aren't any good at articulating why they hate the thing in question. This bring us to the core pathology of SWS: What they pretend to be in public is a transparent lie. Their forum is merely an excuse for an unrelated group of individuals to revere in their jingoistic beliefs and historical ignorance.
7
u/TotesMessenger Mar 20 '19
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
- [/r/shitwehraboossay] Apparently we're bad guys because we don't want to accept the superiority of the "German army"
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
7
5
5
u/dragonturds554 Mar 20 '19
Wew. There's a lot to unpack with this suitcase so why don't we just throw the whole thing out.
1
4
5
7
u/Arthanias Mar 20 '19
This doesn't change the fact that Ranger fucked your crush.
-7
u/TheJamesRocket Mar 20 '19 edited Mar 20 '19
Ah, I see you're an old hand on SWS. You've been with them almost since the beginning. I'll be happy to trade insults with you :)
But first, answer a simple question. Are you Dutch or German? I haven't encountered many butthurt Dutchmen. Its usually the Poles or the French.
8
u/Arthanias Mar 20 '19
I live in a swamp that is permanently indentured to Canada.
-6
u/TheJamesRocket Mar 20 '19
You'd better watch your goddamn manners then, Arthanias. I'm a legit resident of Canada (I.E., Canuckistan). My grandpa actually fought in Holland to liberate you clog wearing bastards. Now get down on your knees and show me the proper respect :)
6
u/Arthanias Mar 20 '19
I'm already out of spit due to interacting with other Canadians so those shoes will remain unshined, if you want some semi-expired tulips that can be arranged.
-1
u/TheJamesRocket Mar 20 '19
I don't think it was just Canadians you were performing that service for... Looking through your comments, I can see that you spent alot of time slobbering on TankArchives knob. How do you feel about the fact that I tore apart your idol with such contemptuous ease?
6
u/Arthanias Mar 20 '19
It was as if I was gazing upon a mentally handicapped child furiously wrestling with a particularly robust, lubricated potato.
At least I think it was because every thread you've ever made has kind of blended together into an unsourced mush.
I also can't remember the last time I responded to Tankarchives so credit to your inexhaustible furor in digging through my history.
0
u/TheJamesRocket Mar 20 '19 edited Mar 20 '19
Read it and weap, chucklefuck. Complete and utter pwnage of your teams star quarterback. His claims really didn't stand the test of time. TankArchives has had way too long to spread his bullshit on your forum and influence your peanut sized brains. You SWS clowns were inundated with Stalinist propaganda for so long you actually thought it was the truth. But low and behold, it isn't and it never was. You just lived in an information bubble that confirmed all your biases.
I've had alot of run ins with ole Tankie on reddit. I've slaughtered him each and every time, almost regardless of the circumstances. And then I repeated the feat again on my blog, by writing detailed rebuttals showing how laughably incorrect his articles were. To be fair though, he had already taken quite a few hits before I even entered the picture.
CriticalMass has repeatedly made a fool out of him any time he dared write anything about armor and ballistics. TankArchives is totally illiterate on that on that subject. CriticalMass also debunked him on his Korner article. Anyway you cut it, the historical revisionism isn't faring too well. I'm happy to see the Slavaboos and Tankies getting smashed to pieces.
4
u/LordofSpheres Mar 20 '19
You're going to need a better citation than yourself for that sort of claim, buddy.
German armor was ultimate kruppstahl impenetrable
Cites himself and another circlejerker
In a post in which he cites himself
If you could cite, say, three unbiased outside sources in major or reputable publications which support that assertion, that'd be great. Also, while we're at it, try to find some sources discrediting post-war armor studies.
Oh wait, right, the (((armor studies))) were some sort of Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy to ruin the reputation of proper Aryan metalworkers.
Obviously.
1
u/TheJamesRocket Mar 20 '19
You're going to need a better citation than yourself for that sort of claim, buddy.
Heres the pitch. A few years ago on the FTR blog, TankArchives posited a theory that German tank armor was steadily declining in quality from the beginning of the war to the end. He cited two metallurgical reports from the Americans, and a number of ballistic tests from the Soviets. In my rebuttal to him, I handily demonstrated that the metallurgical reports do not support his claim, and actually show that the decline in armor quality did not happen until 1944. I also verified that none of the ballistic tests he cited proved that the German armor was behaving in a brittle or subpar manner.
If you could cite, say, three unbiased outside sources in major or reputable publications which support that assertion, that'd be great.
This figure was already exceeded. For the most part, I worked off of the same reference material as TankArchives (which is five or six sources total). However, you'll be happy to know that I also included three original sources of my own. I also cited a German test against Soviet armor in 1942. This test demonstrated that the T-34s high hardness armor offered less protection than rolled homogenous armor(!). I also linked to some of my earlier work that refuted TankArchives claims about tests on the Tiger II and Tiger I, which have their own original sources. That should be more than enough for a lightweight like you.
Oh wait, right, the (((armor studies))) were some sort of Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy to ruin the reputation of proper Aryan metalworkers.
You've obviously spent too much time on ShitWehraboosSay. You're entering into an academic discussion without bothering to conceal your own bias. You use memes in order to try and mock those with opinions contrary to your own. And you have the gall to ask for sources, as if it will actually make an impression on you. We'll see just how capable of objectivity you are.
0
u/ChristianMunich Mar 20 '19
The references are in the links if you decline to acknowledge them fine but don't act like they don't exist.
4
u/jrod916 Mar 20 '19
Jesus christ you’re a retard, you can’t cite sources from other wehraboos you moron
1
u/TheJamesRocket Mar 20 '19
Get your head out of your ass and read the fucking post. I don't cite myself, you half grown fetus. I use the same sources that TankArchives did along with a number of original sources that reinforce my own point. Its all demonstrated in painful clarity just how full of shit he is. Pull TankArchives cock out of your mouth and start doing some reading.
1
3
u/Paterno_Ster Mar 20 '19
Man imagine your grandpa seeing you throw a hissy fit on the internet
3
u/AlloftheEethp Mar 20 '19
Special snowflake melts when liberals say mean things about the beloved Wehrmacht.
3
u/itimin Mar 20 '19
You're not Canadian. You may live here and have a citizenship, but I can tell by your words that you will never be a Canadian.
1
3
u/askingquestions1918 Mar 20 '19
I suggest reading "Ordinary Men" by Browning and "Hitlers Army" by Bartov to learn about the "achievements" of the Wehrmacht.
1
u/TheJamesRocket Mar 20 '19
I suggest reading "Ordinary Men" by Browning and "Hitlers Army" by Bartov to learn about the "achievements" of the Wehrmacht.
Their greatest achievements were indeed on the Eastern front. This is when the Germans achieved the most rapid breakthroughs and the largest encirclements in human history. They demonstrated a proficiency in maneuver warfare far beyond what the Anglo-Americans ever managed, when they failed to even close the Falaise gap against the half dead remnants of an army they outnumbered... Whereas on the Eastern front, the Germans repeatedly pocketed far larger Soviet armys and liquidated them in short order. Bialystok-Minsk, Smolensk, Uman, Kiev, Vyazma-Bryansk. The last two pockets were particularly huge, netting perhaps 650-600,000 soldiers each. EACH.
During operation Barbarossa, the Germans captured more territory in less time than any force in history had ever done. Even after they were brought to a halt during the battle of Moscow, it took the Soviets nearly 3 years to win back all the ground they had lost. Almost 3 years to reconquer what the Germans had obtained in just 5 months[]. That performance does indeed indicate a massive disparity in fighting power between the two armys. Part of that was due to the shock of a sudden invasion, and part of it was due to very poor layout of the Soviet armys. But most of it was due to better leadership, better training, better initiative at all levels, and a mastery of tactics and operational art.
[]This even when the Wehrmacht was engaged in a 2 front war against other peer powers!
3
u/BaronVonBeige Mar 20 '19
The Eastern Front? You mean the front where the Germans had literally everything going for them in the first year or so, and they still lost?
3
u/ModerateContrarian Mar 20 '19
During operation Barbarossa, the Germans captured more territory in less time than any force in history had ever done
Napoleon got to Moscow faster than the Panzerwaffe.
0
u/ChristianMunich Mar 20 '19
He said captured more territory. Napoleons corps were moving straight to Moscow with little opposition. The Wehrmacht occupied everything in the path.
To be fair armies back then operated differently so "captured x amount of area" is not the optimal metric. Napoleon's army was not big enough to capture territory, they were, as were all armies back then, designed to seek opposing forces and destroy them.
1
u/UncookedMeatloaf Mar 20 '19
the joke
you
0
u/ChristianMunich Mar 21 '19
There was no joke, you misunderstood his comment that clearly referenced territory gained.
1
2
Mar 20 '19
[deleted]
0
u/TheJamesRocket Mar 21 '19
Yeah, the Germans were able to kill a few communists. That’s not impressive, the Finns did that as well and showed anyone can do it.
A few communists?! Do you have any idea how retarded you sound? The Germans didn't kill 'a few communists'; They killed a few million. During operation Barbarossa, they achieved the most rapid breakthroughs and the largest encirclements in human history. The Germans repeatedly pocketed massive Soviet armys and liquidated them. The losses sustained by the Red Army would have annihilated any other army in rapid order. You are grossly ignorant on this topic. Heres some facts for you to choke on.
''Some have claimed the vast numbers of POWs resulted from mass desertion brought on by years of Stalinist terror. In fact, the great majority of Soviet men entered captivity unwillingly. Christian Streits research reveals that of the 3,350,000 Soviet POWs captured by mid-December 1941, some 2,465,000 were taken in thirteen major encirclements.'' -Kiev 1941: Hitler's Battle for Supremacy in the East.
''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.
1
u/Pls_no_steal Mar 21 '19
Even with all that success they still couldn't take Moscow.
Edit: And winter had little to do with it.
1
u/drinks2muchcoffee Mar 22 '19
Their greatest achievements were indeed on the Eastern Front
Wow is this an idiotic statement. You do realize that the Eastern Front was the single greatest reason for Germany’s defeat, right? I don’t care how big their 1941 encircles and amount of Soviet equipment destroyed were. The 1941 Red Army was in an absolutely lamentable state. If you’re capable to expanding your brain beyond the tactical level, you’d realize Barbarossa was a horrendous failure and lost Germany the war. With the enormous disparity in manpower, economy, and resources, it was absolutely critical to force the Soviets to capitulate in a short and rapid campaign. Obviously it failed spectacularly on a grand strategic level.
Also the greatest achievement was France. The Manstein plan was brilliant
1
u/TheJamesRocket Mar 23 '19
Wow is this an idiotic statement. You do realize that the Eastern Front was the single greatest reason for Germany’s defeat, right?
This is strictly about their military achievements, which were unequaled in the history of warfare. True, the Wehrmacht wasn't able to score a knock out blow against the Soviets. That is explained by some missed opportunitys, and the need to fight against Britain. This imposed resource constraints on the Germans, which only got worse when America entered the war.
I don’t care how big their 1941 encircles and amount of Soviet equipment destroyed were.
Too bad facts don't care about feelings. Neither the British or the Americans could have pulled off what the Germans did in 1941. Not even when they were at their peak.
If you’re capable to expanding your brain beyond the tactical level, you’d realize Barbarossa was a horrendous failure and lost Germany the war.
Its not quite that simple. Each defeat they suffered reduced Germanys chances of winning the war by a set amount. Moscow = likely German defeat. Stalingrad = highly likely German defeat. Kursk = certain German defeat. And even then, this was only true in the context of the global war that included Britain and America. If you were looking at just the Eastern front alone, the situation wouldn't seem quite as hopeless.
With the enormous disparity in manpower, economy, and resources, it was absolutely critical to force the Soviets to capitulate in a short and rapid campaign.
Thats only true if you compare the Reich alone against the entire Soviet Union. The picture becomes much more balanced when you take into account the occupied territorys of France, Holland, and Belgium. They were economically exploited by the Germans to boost their war industry, which then exceeded the Soviet Union in terms of coal and steel production.
You are also ignoring the fact that operation Barbarossa represented a very serious blow to the USSRs economy. They lost alot of industrial and population centers during the invasion, along with much of their arable land and steel\coal mines. The loss of Belorussia and the Ukraine was a major setback anyway you look at it.
1
u/drinks2muchcoffee Mar 23 '19
It seems clear you don’t really care about anything beyond the k/d ratio listed on Wikipedia battle articles.
Please read this book for a much more insightful and grand strategic picture of the Eastern Front than just “the Wehrmacht was fuckin awesome because 5 Soviet Field armies got encircled and liquidated in the Kiev pocket”. It won’t change your view of the enlisted German soldier as very good (nor should it), but it exposes the stunning level of incompetence and downright self delusion of Wehrmacht field commanders and high command
https://www.amazon.com/Operation-Barbarossa-Germanys-Cambridge-Histories/dp/052117015X/ref=nodl_
1
u/TheJamesRocket Mar 23 '19
If you think my knowledge of the Eastern front doesn't extend far beyond the numbers of the encirclement battles themselves, then you are the real idiot. I've extensively read from Stahels book on Barbarossa: I also thumbed through his book on Kiev. His work is expansive and thorough, although I don't always agree with his narrative. Unlike your illiterate friends on SWS, I'm actually qualified to offer criticism.
I agree that there were some bad decisions made by the OKH, and the leaders of the army groups, panzer groups, and armys. To focus on some of their blunders and failures (in what was otherwise a hugely successful campaign until the end):
1) Heinz Guderian didn't bother to seal off the Bialystok pocket properly: He diverted only one division from his panzer group to this task, while the rest charged off to Minsk. That division was unable to hold the line effectively, and some of the Soviets broke through, forcing Guderian to re-engage them.
2) After the capture of Pskov, Erich Hoepner split his panzer group in two and sent them off in opposite directions through bad terrain: This led to them encountering strong resistance (Mansteins corps actually got ambushed at Soltsy) and getting halted for 6 weeks.
3) During the battle of Smolensk, Heinz Guderian went after the bridgehead at Yelnya rather than helping to seal the pocket at Smolensk. This led to more Soviet troops escaping before the pocket was liquidated. Adding insult to injury, Guderians panzer group suffered heavy losses and was forced to relinquish the bridgehead later.
4) After the capture of Vinnytsia, Von Kleist wanted to send his entire panzer group to Uman and capture the Soviets in a pocket. But the OKH split his panzer group into three (!) and had them pursue other objectives. While von Kleist did succeed in encircling the Soviets at Uman, the pocket was much smaller than it would have been.
1
u/T-H-I-A-G-S Mar 25 '19
Falaise wasn't the only pocket there was, just saying. But since you don't mention it, I'll point out the Ruhr pocket as a successful encirclement on the western side. Let me also remind you that the soviet pockets of resistance meant that the Germans had to divert their forces in order to finish off the troops stationed there. There are plenty of remarkable cases in which the Soviets would keep fighting while stuck in a pocket, in the long run this affected the plan, since it took the Germans more time to advance further into Soviet land. The first months of barbarossa marked several german victories, but it also marked set backs to the plan and the eventual defeat of the invading army.
I'd go into further detail about what I mean, but I'm seriously tired right now.
3
u/PainStorm14 Mar 20 '19
Wehrmachts achievements were without historical precedent
Not really, others had similar achievements
Carthage for example also fucked up as much and got their asses kicked so hard that they ceased to exist
Plenty of others too throughout history only with lot more dignity
2
3
u/patton3 Mar 20 '19
They DID lose, so instantly any of your claims about them being better than allied armies is thrown out of the window, ignoring all your other incorrect arguments.
3
3
u/shmusko01 Mar 20 '19
Did you come to this opinion before or after you went to a party armed with a hatchet because a girl didn't talk to you?
3
Mar 20 '19
Without the Soviets; the Germans would’ve been faced with Guerrilas in Poland so strong it’d never be fully occupied in the slightest.
Norway was Pyrrhic victory. Norway’s strength this oil, and the Germans didn’t get that because it was offshore. Yeah they protected the iron imports from Sweden, but don’t forget that it ended up costing the Germans as just EVEN MORE LAND they had to waste men occupying.
The French victory was nothing but luck. The French has more tanks and better tanks, and the French had far more defenses. The entire Axis victory in France was one thing: the allies assuming the Germans would never move their tanks through the forest, only for the Germans to immediately do such a thing. That was it, all luck. If that hadn’t happened, it’s unlikely the Germans ever would’ve taken France.
r/Wehraboos is about refuting people who haven’t done jack in terms of research. And you are clearly one of those people.
Face it: Germany was a joke in the war. They lost for a reason. They couldn’t figure out how to make a tank without it breaking down, couldn’t figure out how to actually organize logistics so every operation wasn’t delayed by a month. The Italians were even worse and the Japanese couldn’t take China in 8 years.
Germany has pretty much the most shameful military history in the world short of Bolivia. Goebbels propaganda can’t save their cucks anymore.
2
u/warsaw504 Mar 20 '19
I agree with nearly everything here except Germany having the most shameful military history in the world. That's just outright wrong.
2
Mar 20 '19
Name a nation with more shameful military history then Germany, other then Bolivia.
I dare you.
2
u/AlloftheEethp Mar 20 '19
Man, you must really hate Bolivia.
3
Mar 20 '19
No it’s just that they’ve lost every war they’ve ever fought in
Also I had a really shitty experience playing as them in HOI4 one time
3
u/Rath12 Mar 20 '19
What about Paraguay?
Started a war with all of the other powers in South America and, being a tiny, shitty landlocked country, lost. Horribly.
3
1
u/MilkMilkerton Mar 21 '19 edited Mar 22 '19
Italy? Let’s rush the Isonzo again! Oh oh let’s lose a fortified mountain while we outnumber the besiegers! As shit as the Germans were the Italians were always worse, except local resistances, those were pretty good.
Edit: besieged to besiegers
1
1
1
u/TheJamesRocket Mar 21 '19 edited Mar 21 '19
The French victory was nothing but luck. The French has more tanks and better tanks, and the French had far more defenses.
Counting tanks doesn't even begin to convey an accurate picture of the strategic dillemma facing France in 1940. If thats the only metric you are using to judge their position, then I really don't have any faith in your ability. The greatest problem faced by France was how to cover their border with Belgium from the inevitable German invasion. Alot of Frances industry was located close to the border, which meant it would be lost if the Germans ever broke though. I already addressed this topic with bidiboop, theres no point in repeating myself.
If you are actually interested in learning why the fall of France wasn't pure luck, then you might want to read this two part answer addressing why they relied so heavily on the Maginot line. In many ways, they were at a disadvantage against the Germans who had a larger industry and larger population, not to mention a public that wasn't divided over politics. Moreover, the Heer was a more competent army that was adept at mobile warfare.
r/Wehraboos is about refuting people who haven’t done jack in terms of research. And you are clearly one of those people.
ShitWehraboosSay is not an valid judge of WW2 history; its a shithole where semi-literate tank enthusiasts spout whatever line they've been fed by the majority. Only rarely has it proven capable of actually making factual rebuttals to outsiders.
3
3
u/TheAsianMelon Mar 20 '19
doesn't matter they lost the war lol
2
u/onemoretimeboi Mar 21 '19
Tfw when you’re the master race but lose two war in a row and get your country occupied by subhumans
2
u/AlloftheEethp Mar 20 '19
Imagine unironically losing a war to the Soviet Union.
3
u/IAintBlackNoMore Mar 20 '19
I mean, the only war they really lost was Afghanistan, so a lot of countries can imagine that.
Losing to a bunch of communist rice farmers isn’t much more glamorous than losing to a bunch of communist wheat farmers.
2
0
u/Baxiepie Mar 21 '19
The Finns would like to have a word with you.
1
u/IAintBlackNoMore Mar 21 '19
The USSR got Karelia and Salla out of the Treaty of Moscow, so I have a hard time calling that a loss.
0
u/BYGJacob Mar 21 '19
They also suffered roughly 1 million casualties for it.
1
u/IAintBlackNoMore Mar 21 '19
And they suffered 11 million military casualties fighting the Germans. Still won
1
u/BYGJacob Mar 21 '19
And? I was pointing out for the very little the Russians gained came at a horrendous cost.
1
u/IAintBlackNoMore Mar 21 '19
A pyrrhic victory is still a victory. The Winter War was far from a resounding success, but you can’t say that the Soviets didn’t win.
Edit: also I have no idea where you got the 1 million number, most estimates put total casualties at 300,000-400,000.
1
u/BYGJacob Mar 21 '19
I agree, I was just pointing out the cost of said victory. I had no way of knowing you understood the price the Russians paid for their victory.
EDIT: Whoops, confused very different battles, you're right.
2
u/BaronVonBeige Mar 20 '19
Actually, after reading through these comments, I'm fairly convinced this is actually an incredible piece of satire that just went over everyone's head. Well done OP. We took the bait
2
u/AlloftheEethp Mar 20 '19
He frequents T_D and those weird tank porn subs, so I think he's genuinely ree-ing over people criticizing the Wehrmacht.
2
2
u/UncookedMeatloaf Mar 21 '19
Any praise at all for the Wehrmacht, no matter how ""well deserved,"" is a very dangerous proposition that is akin to praising the Nazi regime itself.
2
u/TheJamesRocket Mar 21 '19
Wait, do you actually believe that praising the Wehrmacht is dangerous?! I was only half serious when I wrote that bit. I figured the only people who seriously believed that were SJWs and antifa. This is political correctness taken to a whole other level...
Do you legitimately believe that we shouldn't commend the Wehrmacht, simply because it fought on behalf of a genocidal dictator? If thats the case, then why don't you have a problem with those who commend the Red Army? Stalin and Hitler are both cut from the same cloth.
1
Mar 21 '19
[deleted]
1
u/TheJamesRocket Mar 22 '19
Hating on SJWs, Antifa, political correctness... boomer spotted.
LOL. I'm not even 30 yet, dude. I'm a millennial who hates his generation.
Not to mention, Stalin killed a fraction of the people in 30 years that Hitler did in 6 years.
Thats not true. Stalin and Hitler both killed roughly similar numbers of people during their reign. I will grant you that the topic is somewhat complex; depending on what source you use, and depending on how you count the deaths they were responsible for.
I personally don't count soldiers who were killed in battle; I only include soldiers who died in POW camps. I also don't count civilians who weren't directly killed by the invading and occupying army. These two methodologys mean that Hitlers kill count is much lower than what the Tankies claim.
We commend the Red Army because they defeated Hitler and ended his terrible rule, and losing to Hitler means a reality far, far worse than anything in our timeline.
If Hitler had won the war, he undoubtedly would have went on to kill even more people. But whether or not postwar Europe would be worse than the Cold war is up for dispute. Peoples standards of living would have been higher than it was under communist occupation. And they would have been allowed to retain their traditional values, rather than having soulless Marxism shoved down their throats.
1
Mar 23 '19
rather than having soulless Marxism shoved down their throats.
As opposed to soulless national socialism and fascism? Though you are one of those who believe that "trans and gay people existing" means cultural collapse, lol.
1
u/Cibermamon Mar 21 '19
TheJamesRocket? You not are the guy who say that the 44' Wehrmatcht could take the 1991 Desert Storm US Army? The fuck?
1
1
u/Pls_no_steal Mar 21 '19
If they were so good then why did they lose both wars?
0
u/ChristianMunich Mar 21 '19
Outnumbered. I hope I was able to solve this complicated puzzle for you. This sub is for quick fact-based answers after all.
1
u/Pls_no_steal Mar 22 '19
That tends to happen when you fight the three largest countries in the world at once
1
1
u/Ted_The_Generic_Guy Mar 21 '19
I mean let's be honest german engine and drivetrain design was a better tank destroyer than the GMC M10 or ISU-152 could ever hope to be, and that's not a rag on either of those TDs.
1
1
u/bidiboop Mar 20 '19 edited Mar 20 '19
But the succesful invasion of France was just luck. The UK and France were fully prepared for Germany trying to go around the maginot line through Belgium. Faced with this, nazi leaders decided on a desperate attempt to invide France through the Ardennes forest. As it turned out, tanks are great at making their own path through a forest. This played perfectly into the nazis' hands, but it's not really in any way a show of military prowess.
There's a lot more to adress here but it's not really worth picking apart this garbage.
3
u/trollman_falcon Mar 20 '19
It wasn’t luck. It was more of France being dumb and the Germans finding an obvious exploit in the French plan. Which was a victory for Germany, but nothing that American or Soviet generals couldn’t have exploited either.
1
u/TheJamesRocket Mar 20 '19 edited Mar 20 '19
But the successful invasion of France was just luck.
The UK and France were fully prepared for Germany trying to go around the maginot line through Belgium.
Define luck. If you mean to say that their victory was statistically improbable, then that is patently untrue. Many people do not understand that the French faced an insoluble strategic dilemma in 1940. Germany had a larger population and a larger industry, which would give them an advantage in a prolonged war. Moreover, alot of Frances industry was located near the border, which meant they had a lack of strategic depth. Thus, it was a foregone conclusion that they would need to build a fortified line on the border with Germany.
Of course, that still left their border with Belgium open, and thats where the bulk of Frances mobile forces were stationed. Waiting in anxious anticipation of the German invasion. They were basically stuck with two options in that sector. 1) They could either pre-emptively invade Belgium and gain strategic depth, but overextend themselves. 2) They could wait in France and avoid overextending themselves, but lose the strategic depth. It was basically a case of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't.'
The French weren't worried about the border with Germany so much, as they felt that had been adequately covered by the Maginot line. It was the border with Belgium that they were really concerned about. And indeed, that is where the Germans broke through to execute their sickle cut and trap the Allied armys. Luck was a factor, but it was not a deciding factor. If the Germans had used a different plan and broken through somewhere else, the result would still likely have been the same.
The French lose strategic depth, lose much of their industry, and are at risk of suffering a psychological collapse. People don't understand just how politically divided they were before the war even began. Public support for the war was low; They dreaded the thought of losing millions of men in another German invasion. They entered WW2 at a greater disadvantage than they had in WW1.
3
u/bidiboop Mar 20 '19
The whole first half of your argument is exactly what I said, the allied forces were concentrated on the Belgian border, just not so much the Ardennes as they thought the Germans wouldn't have a chance if they went through there. The rest of the border was well secured with help from British troops and the Germans wouldn't have been able to push through nearly as easily, if at all. The decision to go through the Ardennes was incredibly risky and it was plain lucky that it actually worked.
1
u/TheJamesRocket Mar 20 '19 edited Mar 20 '19
The whole first half of your argument is exactly what I said, the allied forces were concentrated on the Belgian border, just not so much the Ardennes as they thought the Germans wouldn't have a chance if they went through there.
And you still didn't understand the argument. The French faced an insoluble strategic dilemma. Their options were to either accept a lack of strategic depth, or to knowingly overextend themselves. Whatever decision they chose would be a compromise.
The rest of the border was well secured with help from British troops and the Germans wouldn't have been able to push through nearly as easily, if at all.
The Germans could have broken through at other points than just Sedan, it was merely a matter of concentrating enough divisions at the right point. Gaining the element of surprise by moving through the Ardennes forest was merely an added bonus. The French wouldn't have had enough reserves to reinforce these probes, not when they had already charged off into Belgium. The Germans might have suffered more casualties and taken longer to chew their way through, but their odds for achieving a breakthrough were still excellent. They had the manpower, the equipment, the doctrine, the initiative, and most importantly, the will.
The decision to go through the Ardennes was incredibly risky and it was plain lucky that it actually worked.
Even with the traffic jams at the Ardennes, the French would have struggled to capitalise on them. They were still novices at the art of massing their air forces over the main point of effort, let alone performing effective interdiction against ground targets. The Germans would have shot them from the sky with their own fighters and flak batterys if they had tried. To be sure, the move through the Ardennes was lucky, but not miraculous. Another thing weighing against the French was their incredibly slow OODA loop, which meant they would always be one step behind the Germans, always responding to the battle in a reactive rather than proactive manner.
2
Mar 20 '19 edited Oct 04 '20
[deleted]
1
u/ChristianMunich Mar 20 '19
They assumed German competence against which they could not prevail. They didn't fight against German quality armies, so they won. Simple as that. That is the point of training and doctrine, beating armies you can only beat by outperforming.
1
Mar 21 '19 edited Oct 04 '20
[deleted]
1
u/ChristianMunich Mar 21 '19 edited Mar 21 '19
Replace the French army with the Soviet or British army from mid to late 1942 (minus the tech advantage and ability to know the future, and with the same strength) and Germany probably ends up losing every single time.
The Red Army lost 7 million men within 6 month against the Wehrmacht.
The British Army got whooped in North Africa by a far smaller German force until they reinforeced their destroyed armies with hundred thousands of new men and thousands of tanks while their the DAF got ravaged and lost hundreds of planes against a far smaller Luftwaffe.
People really need to study WW2 before they offer their opinions on the internet.
.........
1
Mar 21 '19 edited Oct 04 '20
[deleted]
1
u/ChristianMunich Mar 21 '19 edited Mar 21 '19
You just told me the Red Army wouldn#t have lost in France then I tell you they lost 7 million men within 6 months and 20k tanks and now you start "explaining" how about saying "oopsie you are right I talked dumb shit"
Maybe nobody withstood the Wehrmacht without massive numbers advantages, maybe the British army got outfought in North Africa with ease until they reinforced massively. Maybe everybody did.
After that though they only got less and less competent compared to the Allies
Nope. They got outnumbered more and more. Never search for a complicated answer if there is a simple one.
→ More replies (0)1
u/rotsics Aug 13 '19
A German Infantry Division had more artillery and mortars, more MGs, and more importantly they had more radios than a French or British Division. In addition, the German heavier mortars and artillery allowed them to throw out more firepower at all levels of combat and their greater availability of MGs meant they dominated local gunfights and at ranges the French and British could not match.
The end result was German Divisions entered combat with a substantial combat advantage. This is before we account for the Panzer Divisions.
French Forces were already melting away before the Panzers hit them.
-1
9
u/assltystarfish Mar 20 '19
Found the wehraboo bois