How, And Why, The Germans Were Better

It’s odd to consider, but it’s true: The Confederate States of America were conquered by the Union before the modern state of Germany was brought into existence. When Otto von Bismarck created the German political entity, my alma mater (Miami University in Oxford, Ohio) was already more than fifty years old. Of course, there had been various unified German tribes and regions since the time of Julius Caesar, but the German state that went to war in 1914 was a younger institution than the band Aerosmith is today.

Also odd to consider, and equally true: Germany in its current form won’t see a Bicentennial. Forty percent of five-year-olds in Germany have a “migrant background”. Ten percent of the country is African or Middle Eastern today, a figure that will more than double in the next ten years and then double again in the decade following. The new Germans are overwhelmingly young and male. It’s not a migration so much as it is an invasion by brute force, and one that will have longer-lasting consequences than William the Conqueror’s trip across the Channel. By the time my son is my age, Germany will be Islamic and any vestiges of its two-thousand-plus-year ethnic past will be of concern chiefly to the historians among us.

What killed Germany — or for that matter, Western Europe as a whole? There are many legitimate places to point a finger, from the adoption of pleasure-seeking atheism as a national religion to the pernicious influence of modern media. Still, I think the loss of more than eight million young men in the two World Wars had a lot to do with Germany’s eventual collapse. Those conflicts killed the best and bravest Germans, leaving the rear-echelon types to father the next generation.

The agenda-based and staggeringly ignorant modern curriculum likes to paint those Germans as goose-stepping Nazis, when in fact the average soldier of the Wehrmacht viewed the Party with the same distant indifference that a modern American solider might apply to Antifa or the Oathkeepers. They were not political. Instead, they were a fighting force with virtually no equal in ancient or modern history — a fact conveniently discarded nowadays, but one that should be remembered by all of us with German heritage.

Thirty years ago, the historian Max Hastings considered the Wehrmacht’s supremacy for the Washington Post. I’ve reproduced his article in full below. If you like what you read, I’d encourage you to buy some of his work. This article is called “Their Wehrmacht Was Better Than Our Army”, and here you go:

* * *

PROPAGANDA IS AN inescapable ingredient of modern conflict. In the Second World War, it was considered essential for the struggle to defeat the German army that the peoples of the Grand Alliance should be convinced of the qualitative superiority of their fighting men to those of the enemy. One dogface or one tommy was worth three wooden-headed krauts. Hitler’s robots could never match the imagination and initiative of Allied soldiers on the battlefield.

The image of the European war conveyed to the American and British public at home was of dogged, determined Allied soldiers struggling against odds towards final victory: “Forget about the glorified picture of fighting you have seen in the movies,” declared a characteristic war correspondent’s dispatch to The New York Times, “The picture you want to get into your mind is that of plugging, filthy, hungry, utterly weary young men straggling half- dazed and punch-drunk, and still somehow getting up and beating the Germans.” An American pilot was reported telling Bob Hope: “It would be nice . . . to get home . . . and stretch my legs under a table full of Mother’s cooking . . . but all I want to do is beat these Nazi sons-of- bitches so we can get at those little Jap bastards.”

Most men of the Allied armies were openly contemptuous of the fantasies about themselves peddled by correspondents, with such notable exceptions as Bill Mauldin and Ernie Pyle. This reaction makes it more remarkable that for a generation after the moment of victory in 1945, so many myths were perpetuated not only by popular historians, but within the military institutions of the West.

In 1950, the great British military writer Capt. Basil Liddell Hart wrote a paper in which he reflected upon the vast Allied superiority of forces in northwest Europe in 1944, and the reluctance of postwar military critics in Britain and America to draw appropriate conclusions about Allied performance: There has been too much self-congratulation and too little objective investigation, he said.

Liddell Hart is not alone in challenging the conventional wisdom about the war. Critics have questioned some of the theories of the controversial American military analysts Col. Trevor Dupuy and Martin Van Creveld, who have subjected the respective performance of the American and German armies on the battlefield to detailed statistical study. But none has yet faulted Dupuy’s conclusion that on almost every battlefield of the war the German showed best:

“On a man for man basis, German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances (emphasis in original). This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost.”

The inescapable truth is that Hitler’s Wehrmacht was the outstanding fighting force of World War II, one of the greatest in history. For many years after 1945, this seemed painful to concede publicly, partly for nationalistic reasons, partly also because the Nazi legions were fighting for one of the most obnoxious regimes of all time.

A spirit of military narcissism, nourished by such films as “The Longest Day,” “A Bridge Too Far” and “The Battle of the Bulge,” has perpetuated mythical images of the Allied and German armies. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of battlefield memoirs published in Britain and America concern, not surprisingly, Allied battlefield experience. They dwell upon fears, difficulties and triumphs of Allied soldiers as seen from Allied foxholes.

We learned a great deal less — indeed, nothing at all — about how the German soldier maintained an effective defense in Europe for 11 months under constant and unchallenged air attack, bombarded daily by devastating artillery concentrations, facing heavy odds, sustained by a fraction of the supplies and firepower available to the Allied soldier.

Now, our vision of World War II is changing. The historical and global perspective that was absent for so many years is at last being attained. Russell Weigley’s magnificent and monumental study of the American army in northwest Europe confronts quite frankly the failure of Eisenhower’s forces to generate the combat power to smash through numerically much inferior German forces until these had been worn down by 11 months of attrition on the western front, compounding the huge drain on the Germans of four years of warfare on the eastern front fighting the Soviets.

Germany’s titanic struggle with the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1944, which killed more than 2 million German soldiers — arguably, the best 2 million — provided the western Allies with an extraordinary luxury for nations at war: time to train, to prepare, to plan to meet the enemy on the battlefield under conditions of their choosing, at a moment carefully selected by the warlords of America and Britain.

From the battle of Normandy to the very end in Germany, the British army’s performance was profoundly influenced by inability to withstand heavy casualties. Montgomery was repeatedly warned by his superiors in London about the scarcity of manpower. Within days of the landings in France, British battalions were being cannibalized to provide replacements. In 1945, whole divisions were broken up for the same reason.

Since the war, far too much critical attention has been focused upon Allied generalship in northwest Europe, and far too little upon unit fighting performance. Allied senior leadership was, on the whole, not inferior to that of the Germans, hampered by the dead hand of Hitler. Montgomery may have been cautious — not least for the reason mentioned above — but he was certainly not incompetent. The sluggish performance of his British formations in Normandy and after was principally attributable to war-weariness and reluctance to accept further heavy loss when final victory was within sight.

Yet for the Americans, manpower was not a problem. From beginning to end of the campaign, their willingness to accept casualties to gain an objective was acknowledged, respected and envied by their British allies. “On the whole, the Americans were willing to go at it more toughly than we were,” declares Field-Marshal Lord Carver, in 1944-45 an armored brigade commander under Montgomery. How was it, then, that the U.S. Army found it enormously difficult, indeed often impossible, to defeat Germans encountered on anything like even terms?

First, there was the extraordinary failure of the western Allies in 1944- 45 to provide their ground forces with adequate weapons. By that phase of the war, American and British technology had created a host of miracles: superb combat aircraft, antisubmarine warfare equipment, radar, the amphibious DUKW, the proximity fuse and the Jeep. Through Ultra, the greatest cipher- breaking operation of all time, the Allies possessed extraordinary knowledge of the German order of battle, deployments and often — though not in the Battle of the Bulge — German intentions.

Yet amid all this, in northwest Europe the Allied leaders invited their ground troops to fight the Wehrmacht with equipment inferior in every category save artillery and transport. German machine-guns, mortars, machine-pistols, antitank weapons and armored personnel carriers were all superior to those of Britain and America. Above all, Germany possessed better tanks. The Sherman, which dominated the Allied campaign, was a superbly reliable piece of machinery. But it was fatally flawed by lack of an adequate gun to penetrate the Tiger and Panther; and by poor battlefield survivability in the face of German tank guns.

These shortcomings were well understood in Washington and London before the 1944 campaign began. But the Chiefs of Staff expressed their confidence that Allied numerical superiority was so great that some qualitative inferiority was acceptable. This confidence was a fatal delusion. Again and again in northwest Europe, much inferior German forces equipped with a handful of Tigers, Panthers or 88mm guns were able to halt a major setpiece Allied attack in its tracks.

For the American Army in northwest Europe, from beginning to end, the critical difficulties centered upon the performance of the combat infantry, the men at the very tip of the spear. It was upon these troops that the overwhelming burden of battle, and of casualties, fell. A report on the tactical lessons of the Normandy campaign by the U.S. First Army declared:

“It is essential that infantry in training be imbued with a bold, aggressive attitude. Many units do not acquire this attitude until long after their entry into combat, and some never acquire it. On the other hand, units containing specially selected personnel such as Airborne and Rangers exhibited an aggressive spirit from the start. The average infantry soldier places too much reliance upon the supporting artillery to drive the enemy from positions opposing his advance . . . .”

Gen. Mark Clark wrote from Italy in the summer of 1944: “Without question our training has not yet produced disciplined officers and disciplined men.” By the winter of 1944 and the Battle of the Bulge, Gen. Omar Bradley’s forces were performing far more effectively than during June and July in Normandy. Yet to the very end — considering the mass of the army rather than only such justly celebrated divisions as the 1st, 4th, 9th and Airborne — American infantry fieldcraft, tactical skill and above all leadership left much to be desired.

One of the greatest American achievements of the war was the expansion of a tiny prewar peacetime force of 190,000 into an army of more than 8 million men. Yet an inevitable consequence of this transformation was a chronic shortage of high-quality, trained career leaders. In all America’s wars, her allies have agreed that the able West Pointer has no superior. The problem, in World War II, was that there were nowhere near enough of these to lead an army of 8 million men.

Likewise, the achievements of the 82d and 101st Airborne Divisions showed what the American soldier at his best can do. Much of the attention on the Market Garden battle (the Allied invasion of the Netherlands in September 1944) has focused upon the heroic sacrifice of the British 6th Airborne Division. Yet objective historians, and some British eyewitnesses, believe that the American divisions put up a more professional combat performance than the British; and that if Gen. Matthew B. Ridgway had been granted the field command rather than the British Gen. Frederick A.M. Browning, the outcome of the battle might have been far happier for the Allies. Thus it would be absurd to suggest that America is not capable of producing elite foot soldiers.

America’s Navy and Air Forces have seldom — and certainly not in World War II — found difficulty in attracting officers of high quality. Yet to be a soldier in America has never been the honorable calling, outside a few thousand Army families. It has traditionally been the route by which young men of modest origins — Eisenhower and Bradley not least among them — may aspire to build a career.

Gen. George S. Patton wrote: “It is an unfortunate and, to me, tragic fact that in our attempts to prevent war, we have taught our people to belittle the heroic qualities of the soldier.” Where in Europe, young men of each nation’s elite have, in war, traditionally gravitated towards the “teeth arms” — rifle and armored regiments — America’s elite in the 20th century have shown other enthusiasms.

America’s brightest and best gravitated instinctively towards the specialist arms, managerial military functions or staff jobs. This is not to deny that some Ivy Leaguers fought with distinction at the sharp end in northwest Europe. But it is reasonable to suggest that in World War II, American infantry units suffered from a severe shortage of educated officer leadership.

Interviewing war veterans, in marked contrast to Europeans who generally acknowledge respect for their officers, American private soldiers lavish regard upon good NCOs, but seldom reveal much for their unit commanders. Many American privates in northwest Europe cannot today recall the name of their battalion commander. I have seldom met any European veteran of whom this would be true.

The notorious American infantry replacement system, by which men were arbitrarily posted to a numbered, non-territorial unit, and had no chance to build the loyalty possible in a British regiment, created deep unhappiness among many men, and contributed to the U.S. Army’s alarming total of almost a million battle-fatigue cases in World War II.

By the spring of 1944, the War Department perceived that a great mistake had been made in according such low manpower priority to infantry. Specialist branches and lines-of- communication units had been permitted to skim off an absurdly high proportion of the fittest and best- educated men. Of 1942 army volunteers, only 5 percent had chosen infantry or armor. It was found that 1944 infantrymen were an inch shorter than the army’s average, a fair measure of general physique.

Although infantry made up only 6 percent of the entire service — an alarmingly low proportion — they were suffering more than 80 percent of American casualties in Europe. Although 54.3 percent of the German army was composed of fighting soldiers, this figure fell to 38 percent in the U.S. Army. About 45 percent of the Wehrmacht was committed to combat divisions, against 21 percent for the U.S. Army. The Americans possessed a far higher proportion of officers to men: yet many more of those officers were employed in rear areas rather than with fighting formations.

In the last year of the war, great efforts were made within the U.S. Army to improve the ratio of teeth to tail; to divert high-quality manpower towards the infantry; to improve the level of infantry training and leadership. In all these things, there was some measure of success. Yet the Americans, like the British, never matched the extraordinary professionalism of the German soldier, an historic legacy that long predated Nazism.

It was probably fortunate for the future of Western civilization, but greatly increased Eisenhower’s difficulties, that few Allied soldier saw themselves for a moment as other than civilians temporarily in uniform, while their German counterparts possessed an uncanny ability to transform themselves from butchers and bank clerks into natural tacticians. One of the more absurd propaganda cliches of the war was the image of the Nazi soldier as an inflexible squarehead. In reality, the German soldier almost invariably showed far greater flexibility on the battlefield than his Allied counterpart.

“The Germans were willing to act — always,” said the British Major- General Brian Wyldbore-Smith. They seldom failed to seize an opportunity offered by Allied error. They were masters of rapid counterattack after losing ground. They would hold a position to the last, then disengage masterfully.

Not every German soldier was a superman, not every formation of equal high quality. After the Battle of the Bulge, for all intents and purposes the Wehrmacht’s last gasp in the west, the western Allies never again faced German units of the highest caliber. But throughout 1944, amid the monumental errors of Germany’s high command, at regimental level the German soldier achieved miracles.

There was a contrast between the attitude and behavior of most young Britons and Americans on the battlefield against those of their German counterparts, and this was not exclusively the product of the enemy’s political fanaticism. John Hersey wrote vividly from a Marine unit on Guadalcanal: “When you looked into the eyes of those boys, you did not feel sorry for the Japs: you felt sorry for the boys. The uniforms, the bravado . . . were just camouflage . . . . They were just American boys. They did not want that valley or any part of its jungle. They were ex-grocery boys, ex-highway laborers, ex-bank clerks, ex-schoolboys, boys with a clean record, not killers.”

Yet in war, the army that proves most successful in making its raw recruits into killers possesses an immeasurable advantage. Montgomery wrote ruefully from the desert to Sir Alan Brooke in London, in identical vein with Hersey: “The trouble with our British boys is that they are not killers by nature.”

In May 1945, the Allies attained victory first through the huge efforts of the Russians who had inflicted three-quarters of the German army’s casualties; and second through the deployment of overwhelming resources. It may be argued that, after 1945, in seeking to learn the lessons of the World War II, the American Army made the mistake of reversing the order of these factors. American commanders came home from Europe believing they had proved that overwhelming air and firepower could not merely be a critical supplement to, but an effective substitute for, dedicated infantry fighting.

If so, this was an error of judgment that continues to cost America dear today. The shortcomings of American infantry in World War II were repeated in Korea, and in Vietnam. It is a great delusion to suppose that the Indochina war revealed unique, unprecedented problems in the U.S. Army. The American army created in World War II had suffered weaknesses and difficulties. These weaknesses, highlighted by media attention and by defeat, had existed since World War II but had never been discussed before.

Many Western professional soldiers believed in 1944-45, and still believe today, that until the United States can come to terms with the problem of producing massed forces of effective combat infantry, the continued commitment of technology and cash will not suffice to make her defense effective.

98 Replies to “How, And Why, The Germans Were Better”

  1. Pat

    This is a bit tangential to what I take as your main point, but I think Hasting’s work from 30 years ago doesn’t apply nearly as much to today’s US Military, which — since the end of the draft — has obviously become professionalized (though I think one could argue that the heavy use of reserve forces in some conflicts probably bears some resemblance to those draft days). Certainly American equipment knows few (or no) equals, and we’ve got 17 (or 25 if you go back to Gulf War I) years of training our soldiers to go from raw recruits to killers.

    Reply
  2. arbuckle

    “the average soldier of the Wehrmacht viewed the Party with the same distant indifference that a modern American solider might apply to Antifa or the Oathkeepers. They were not political.”

    Maybe in both cases that indifference is a very bad thing.

    Reply
    • silentsod

      Perhaps, but the majority of fighters were farmhands, apprentices, and just plain kids. Black Edelweiss is a front line soldiers accounting of his experiences and it’s well worth the read.

      Reply
  3. MrFixit1599

    Granted, I am no expert, but we helped in WWII by being able to manufacture more tanks, jeeps, and weapons, than the Germans could. Very little of what the USA made were better weapons. We also could supply more personnel. They weren’t trained (indoctrinated if you will) as well, and many of them died because of it. Had Hitler not attacked Russia, the world would be a very different place today.

    My lineage is Swiss, so I am very glad I never had to do my job in the Navy. No one wants to press the button on an ICBM.

    Reply
  4. Joe

    With so much of our manufacturing and engineering base erroded, I wonder if we could pull off another win like wwII, it seems we won wwII by having much more resources available to us as both a manufacturing base and as a manpower base, in Japan, it is said that their soldiers were not worth the postage it cost to bring them in for training, however, they would do most anything they were told, I see no way in Hell that you could convince an American that he should sacrifice his life for the sake of the cause, not sure what the German soldiers would or not do for their country, so much of what a soldier would do is cultural. None of this is to diminish our U.S. Soldiers, I would like to think that they like to think for themselves to get through a situation, so many have given the ultimate sacrifice!

    Reply
    • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

      Not a chance. The “Arsenal of Democracy” was packed up and shipped to China, where it became the arsenal of crony capitalism.

      In any war with China we’d be where Japan was in 1941: ahead on tactics and equipment, down on manpower, production, and resources. Desperate to fight in a hurry and negotiate an advantageous peace before the other side gets the factories rolling.

      Reply
      • jz78817

        yeah but war isn’t the same as it was in 1941. Bombers, nukes, and drones have become as (if not more) important than boots on the ground.

        if it came to “boots on the ground,” going up against a country of >1 billion with a still-sort-of-totalitarian government willing to conscript as many bullet traps as needed would be grim indeed.

        Reply
        • Panzer

          “yeah but war isn’t the same as it was in 1941. Bombers, nukes, and drones have become as (if not more) important than boots on the ground.”

          And they’ve been saying the same shit since 1955. And yet we’re still fighting wars where the Soldiers and Marines are clearing the mud huts and shooting from irrigation trenches…

          Reply
      • Rod Jones

        “Not a chance. The “Arsenal of Democracy” was packed up and shipped to China, where it became the arsenal of crony capitalism.”

        I disagree. The reason we were able to outproduce the axis was the conversion of auto plants into building the planes, tanks, etc needed for the war. Today we have even more plants that could be converted into war material plants. Regardless there will be no war with China. They need us and we need them. This was not the case with Japan or Germany 70 years ago.

        Reply
        • Ronnie Schreiber

          Charles Wilson, a high ranking General Motors exec who ran the War Production Board during WWII, and was later Eisenhower’s Secy of Defense, was the father of the postwar defense industry. He said that in the next war the United States would not have the time to convert domestic industries to military production.

          With modern weaponry and long lead times, the idea of converting to military production just won’t work.

          Reply
          • Rod Jones

            I dont think there is a correct answer to this issue of our readiness to fight a war with no time to prepare. We already spend more on our military than the next seven countries combined at the expense of infrastructure, education, R&D, and healthcare. I dont think it would make sense for us or anyone else to divert even more funds to build up a war ready supply of material that will become obsolete in a few years and probably wont be needed.

        • DirtRoads

          No war with China? Don’t be so sure. Once they gain what they think is sufficient upper hand, they won’t hesitate to attack us and finish the economic war with a soldier war.

          Reply
  5. smeggs

    Armageddon by Hastings is one of my favorite military history books. It’s amazing what the Germans were able to do with their dwindling resourses. Another good book is Hell to Pay, Operation Downfall and the Invasion of Japan. It will open your eyes to what Truman and the Joint Chiefs were dealing with when they had to decide whether to drop the Bomb.

    Reply
  6. jz78817

    Even the best army in the world can be brought down by poor planning and an opponent like Stalin who was willing and able to throw as many bodies as possible at you.

    Reply
  7. Unknown

    Inferior weapons trope. Check
    Separating Wehrmacht from SS and atrocities. Check
    Islamization of Germany. Check (hello cheap Turkish labor)
    Blame failures on Grofaz. Check
    Cherry picking quotes. Check
    Comparing Tigers and unreliable Panthers with infantry support tanks. Check

    They fc king Lost. And thank fuck they did. Lucky the bucket of sunshine wasn’t dropped over Berlin as intended.
    When do you buy your Hugo Boss suit?

    Reply
      • Unknown

        Amusing.
        HB made Wehrmacht uniforms, too. Which was my point. Like those natty greatcoats that served their wearers so well on the Eastern front.
        Amateurs talk tactics. Professionals talk logistics. And Germany in WW2 was truly shit in logistics.
        Anything else? Like an attempt at an actual refutation?
        Tank doctrine of the Heer v US forces?

        Reply
      • CJinSD

        Ironically, Nazi fashions always resonate with certain groups; and I’m not talking about white trash supremacists. I’m looking at you, Max Mosley and Prince Harry.

        Reply
  8. Ronnie Schreiber

    “the average soldier of the Wehrmacht viewed the Party with the same distant indifference that a modern American solider might apply to Antifa or the Oathkeepers. They were not political.”

    A couple of points.

    While the individual soldiers of the Wehrmacht may not have been political, Hitler specifically purged the SA Brownshirts in the Night of the Long Knives in 1934 to get the political support of the Wehrmacht leadership.

    Totalitarian regimes can only exist as long as enough citizens are willing to staff the machinery of oppression. Countries generally get the governments they deserve.

    From a prose standpoint, it’s a terribly written book, but Daniel Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners very well documents how regular Wehrmacht units and German police battalions were instrumental to the implementation of the Final Solution. Of course that doesn’t taint every German soldier as a war criminal, but a little known fact remains that German soldiers, officers and enlisted men, could request transfers from units if they did not want to participate in killing civilians, without punishment. “I vas only following orders” isn’t even an excuse.

    Was the average German soldier a better soldier than the average American, Canadian, British or Australian soldier? Probably. Were German weapons superior? For the most part, yes. The Germans were better trained (except for perhaps aviators – the U.S. rotated combat pilots back to train new pilots with the latest techniques and tactics) and had a well established system for reestablishing command when officers got disabled or killed.

    The were defending an indefensible society and they lost, thank God and the Allied forces (for all their flaws).

    Reply
    • Panzer

      Sorry, but Goldhager’s book is shite that was trashed completely by his historian peers.
      If I wrote a book about how Black American men are all actually street thugs at heart, waiting to act on those impulses and then back up my thesis by vividly describing a single liquor store robbery in which the korean shop owners get murdered – what would I be called?

      Reply
  9. Ronnie Schreiber

    ” one that should be remembered by all of us with German heritage.”

    Considering that Germany is a fairly recent invention and considering that “Germans” still identify as Bavarians, Swabians etc., (not to mention Austrians, Swiss, and maybe Flemish and Dutch as well) can one really say that there is such a thing as a German heritage?

    In a sense, Hitler was trying to promote a pan-Germanic culture that didn’t really exist.

    Reply
      • Ronnie Schreiber

        Seydel, the company that supplies the actual harmonica components for the Harmonicaster, is in Klingenthal, Saxony, on the Czech border.

        Saxony has been a major musical instrument manufacturing region for a couple of centuries at least. You should have a guitar made there.

        Reply
    • Panzer

      And Scots and Welshman and Englishmen all have their regional identities and are perfectly comfortable being British at the same time – would anyone even dream of suggesting that Britain/British civilization somehow doesn’t exist?

      Reply
      • Ronnie Schreiber

        would anyone even dream of suggesting that Britain/British civilization somehow doesn’t exist?

        Ask the folks clamoring for Scottish independence.

        Reply
        • Panzer

          An independence where they would still share a currency and a monarchy with England and Wales 👍
          Nothing more than a power grab by local elites my friend.

          Reply
  10. Paul

    Some of the best of the German engineering was Jewish. How does that map to your line of thinking?

    Turks were already there before what you consider the new Muslim invasion. They are/were assimilated. I guess that never came on your radar.

    Germans are great. You should be proud of your heritage. So are Jews. So are Muslims. I am not in favor of mass migration of Africans, their culture has never progressed. You are so wrong about these Syrians.

    I moved away from Midwest (Indiana), because I couldn’t breath. So much of the same. I moved to Atlanta in 1985. Back then, I could breath with the mix of old south and new south. I have lived in Atlanta for 30 years. Now have a vacation house near Savannah. Love the south and its mix. I encourage you to move to visit south and feel free.

    You are so wrong about feeling Germans, or any ONE ethnicity is the best. We are all good.

    Reply
    • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

      I think you’re reading a lot of general opinions into some specific comments.

      The German Army was superior in WWII. That doesn’t mean that Germans are somehow better people overall.

      The current invasion of Europe is on a scale never before seen in human history. Ellis Island brought in 12 million immigrants in sixty years. The Germans have had six million in twenty.

      Reply
      • Zykotec

        PS, I’m quite sure that ,even if the immigration has been great the last few years, there are still not 320 million people with a migrant heritage in Germany today…

        Reply
        • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

          No, I’m saying that Muslim immigration to Germany is happening three times as fast as immigration of all types into the United States during its most open-borders period. That’s six million across twenty years, not six million per year.

          Reply
          • Kevin Jaeger

            I don’t think anyone has a really solid count of how many Muslims are in Germany today. It is certainly safe to say that the combination of a collapsed birth rate in Germany and a high immigration rate (with also high fertility rate) of Muslims is causing a demographic transformation in Germany at a rate the world has rarely seen.

            I’m not sure how long it took Constantinople to become Istanbul, and the Hagia Sophia to be converted from a Christian Church but we will certainly live to see German cities undergo a similar conversion. It will be interesting to see the reaction when their Cathedrals start getting converted to mosques.

          • newton

            Read about the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan. book written in 1920s prescribing massive immigration into europe from the mideast and africa to dilute the native nationalism and promote pan-european unity. Kalergi was essentially the founder of the EU and he received the first Charlemagne prize. His book described the future world gov’t which would be run by jewish financiers and royal family.

    • Kevin Jaeger

      “Turks were already there before what you consider the new Muslim invasion. They are/were assimilated. I guess that never came on your radar.”

      It’s fair to say that the Turks have been in Germany a long time, and certainly the early waves starting in the 1960s were not particularly problematic. They certainly didn’t carry out mass terror attacks like the jihadists of today do.

      But they certainly were not assimilated. No one considers them German, least of all themselves or their descendants. The second and third generations have become much more radical than the initial guest workers ever were.

      Reply
  11. Ken

    Good read Jack – thanks for posting.

    I have an affinity for WW2 history, although I am no buff. I’ve read about the German’s superior training and weaponry, but I can’t help think – that certainly by the end of the war, their tenacity had to be in defense of their country.

    I don’t think “American Boys” would be anything to feel sorry for; if there was ever a day they were fighting on their own soil.

    Reply
    • Unknown

      Nice one
      Jerries: horse borne infantry. Mmm carry that hay, until you need to eat them
      Everyone else: sitting in the back of a truck
      Go German engineering. Where’s my Nazzzzzi aircraft carrier? Where’s my Tank transmission that lasts longer than a tank of fuel? Where is the landing gear on my Me 163?
      General question: What is the inherent characteristic of the Landser that makes him “superior”? As you wrote defending your poor country in the face of the revenging hordes is a decent one. Jack?… MG doctrine? Nothing to lose? SS Charlemagne? Innate biological supremacy (joke)?
      Oh and Quoting L Hart: realpolitik. Denazification in reverse.
      Now lose some weight!!

      Reply
      • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

        I think you’re getting a little more upset than the situation warrants.

        In the future, we won’t mention the war.

        Reply
        • Kevin Jaeger

          The unhinged reaction to the discussion of anything German is something to behold.

          You would think that among “diversity is our strength” types it would be permissible to notice that some cultures have some strengths. But no, mentioning that Germans are good at some things drives some people right off the cliff.

          Reply
          • Ronnie Schreiber

            The Germans were indeed very good at some things. They were the world’s leaders in chemistry (in the 1970s, it was still recommended that chemistry majors learn German) and between Germany and Austria they had some of the world’s best engineers. They also did a fairly complete job at murdering my grandfather’s extended family.

            One of the reasons why people had a hard time believing stories of atrocities coming out of Europe was precisely because Germany was seen as a modern, technologically advanced country, with outstanding cultural contributions. How could a society that produced Beethoven and Goethe do such things?

        • Unknown

          Nahh. Not upset at all. Been there, argued that. shit I’ve been following from many sources for a long time. Far too long, in all truth.
          But nice try. And no, I’m not from U.K., so I don’t mind mentioning the war.
          Was looking/hoping for some challenging responses. Esp L Hart. Pity.

          Fatty.

          Reply
          • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

            At the risk of discussing too much about my family history, I’ve heard enough about Hart and Guderian and whatnot in my own childhood to ever want to discuss it at length again. But if you ever want to come back here with a real name I’ll see what I can do.

      • Panzer

        “Where’s my tank transmission that lasts more than a tank of fuel?”

        Maybe if the Germans had abundant access to high quality alloys they could’ve made some hard wearing final drives..
        But yeah, you do realize right that the Panther was such a great Armoured Fighting Vehicle hat it pretty much rewrote the book on tank design and single handedly created the modern ‘Main Battle Tank’ concept?

        Reply
  12. Zykotec

    Much of the almost admireable strenght of the German WWII warforce owes lot to great propaganda though. And the element of surprise. And hoping that Russia would not attack them first. And the hope that the US would stay out of it. Europe for the most part was not at all prepared for another great war, while Germany was training specialized forces.
    They obviously would have lost eventually anyway, but the US probably shortened the war by at least a couple of years. Screw the German empire though. And all the other European ’empires’ for that matter.

    Any (preceived or real) greatness and strength of the US lies in its diversity, the whole fact that it is a mix of people and cultures from the whole world. (Even if there are quite a few honestly quite despicable religious freaks that we chased out of Europe hundreds of years ago. Any offense taken is totally meant wholeheartedly if any of the radical sides of any religion should come upon this comment.)
    The death of the ‘white supremacist dream-Europe’ will eventually be ruled accidental suicide through inbreeding and laziness. As The Book of Darwin tells us, specialization and unwillingness to adapt always leads to extinction, and the world will be almost always be a better place for it. The ex-colony powers have been living on borrowed time for way to long, and they will not be missed by anyone of any (future) importance. At all.
    Good frikking riddance.
    And that is said as a white European whose grandparents fought the german invasion, and whose parents fought to keep us out of the EU. And whose forefathers fought the Christian invasion a millennia ago.
    The invention of the Kebab alone is probably more important than any surviving European ‘heritage’ that is still relevant. (design, and beer? are there any others?) That said Fuck Turkey. There are several reasons there are so many Turkish immigrants in Europe. And one of them is that Turkey sucks balls some times.
    As for the Oh so scary, scary Muslim invation (which exists only as propaganda tool so far, infact it’s 20+ year old serbian propagande, repackaged for our convenience, did the NATO bomb them, ooops), if some british companies dealing in petroleum, or some american centers of intelligence (I’ll let them both go unnamed) hadn’t been so incredibly frightened of having to share their wealth, (and if some people named Stalin hadn’t gone completely bonkers insane) there probably would be no radical Islam problems in the world today at all.
    Most of the ‘traditional islam’ we have today is as old as the flat earthers and creationists. They are retarded frikking hipster religions born after the great wars.
    I (mostly) have no problems with people identifying as religious if they can keep it to themselves, but now we have people all over claming that Scandinavia has a christian frikking heritage, and those people can just go crucify themselves…no offense to any thinking member of any religion.
    But the American military machine that made so many people rich during WWII needed to be perpetuated I guess, and if there’s nothing to fear, there is no reason to build weaponry for billions (trillins?) of dollars each year, and that would mean a lot of lost jobs and well…
    Oh, and yeah, technology, all new tech is based on our skills in killing people without dying so we really really need wars to get good tech??? (god, people are getting so fucking retarded that it’s starting to physically hurt me)

    When eventually people start to understand that having borders is a pretty retarded and a quite recent man made concept, and that one hour of work in China or Senegal is worth the same as one hour of work in Ireland or in Hawaii (shipping not included), then the world will finally be starting to go the right way, but I guess a long nuclear winter is a slightly more realistic scenario. ( we are all gonna drown in ,or choke on, cheap plastic crap anyway, so who cares)

    Reply
    • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

      I think you’re going to have to pick sides here… either the advent of modern European borderless atheism is the greatest thing since sliced bread, OR the Muslim invasion of Europe is gonna be totally fine. You can’t say “Oh, I hate religion, fuck all these religious people, they need to keep their opinions to themselves” while at the same time winking at Europe being overrun by people who are totally comfortable getting the law and their banking ideas as well as their religion from the mullah du jour.

      If European atheism is really valuable, it shouldn’t be sacrificed for the sake of cheap labor.

      If an Islamic Europe is just fine with you, then the attendant baggage (sharia law, women covered in public, children as property, hands cut off for theft) also has to be just fine with you.

      Reply
      • Zykotec

        No, the main point is that there is no huge radical Islamic invasion going on. It’s pure bullshit. There are about as many dangerous radical muslims in Europe as there were crooked evil Jewish bankers wanting to destroy germany in the 30’s.
        Atheism is not valuable, it’s often just as retarded as any theism. There is no scientific way to prove that there is no God.
        But, saying that some people are good or not, worthy or not, based on whatever current interpretation of 2000 year old scriptures is fashionable, is retarded.
        Saying that ‘God is with us’ when you’re either attacking or defending Iraq is retarded, (unless you have proof that there are two ‘Gods’ ofcourse.
        That said, the political correctness in some countries, is getting so retarded that in some parts of Britain you could probably get away with practicing sharia law and claim you had the right to perform your religion. Offcourse some of this political correctness is based on laws made to protect religious people, mainly Christians and the Jewish.
        As for their banking, if there truly is a God, he would be against interest rates. There is certainly some proper evil lurking in conventional banking.

        Reply
        • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

          Some backing data:

          https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9892/germany-muslims-demographic

          Furthermore, what makes you think the incoming Muslims have to be “radical” in order to completely destroy Germany as we know it? What makes you think that Muslims have to be “radical” in order to support sharia law, headscarves, and the dovetailing of religious and legal considerations?

          With all due respect, you’re taking your own attitude towards Christianity and imposing it on a group of deeply religious and thoroughly serious people who don’t have any contempt for or intellectual distance from Islam. They really believe what they say, as hard as that is for you to acknowledge.

          Reply
          • Ark-med

            Pew research polls conducted in Muslim countries (“moderate” or not), have shown majorities, pluralities, or very strong minorities supporting Shariah law and its draconian jurisprudence over family law, corporal punishments and execution for apostasy. Google search for “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society”.

            Even if the majorities of migrants don’t manifest bellicose behavior, they will tacitly or expressly support it insofar as it furthers supremacy of Shariah law over their new host nations’ jurisprudence.

          • Zykotec

            Integration is important. It is everything in fact.
            Most Scandinavians living abroad will try to adapt to new cultures, and learn new stuff, if they are alone, or in a small group, like one family etc. I guess this is partly true wherever they are from.
            But, put 200 Scandinavians in one hotel by the mediterranean sea , with access to Scandinavian food, Scandinavian shops, and people who are willing to to learn their language , and alcohol prices that are 1/3 of what we have at home, and you learn why the Wikings were feared a thousand years ago.
            Heck, Spain has a whole bunch of elderly Norwegian immigrants, who have made part of it into their own version of Florida, and can’t even be bothered to learn the local language. (but Spain is struggling with a lot of things) And who vote for the less immigrant friendly parties back home…even if many of them end up marrying in Thailand eventually, because no European women born after 1870 can stand their outdated world views)
            TL:DR
            Put a few hundred thousand immigrants from any country in one part of any city, and they will mostly continue to live like they did at home.

          • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

            I agree. So what happens when a country is demographically replaced by people who have zero desire to integrate?

          • jz78817

            “Furthermore, what makes you think the incoming Muslims have to be “radical” in order to completely destroy Germany as we know it? “

            you kind of have to show how Germany is a “thing” which is being “destroyed.”

            because you’re doing the typical middle-aged-man thing of assuming that the way things were during your lifetime are the “correct” and “proper” way for things to be. Modern Germany has only existed since the late 1980s, so who are you to say this is the way things are supposed to be? Who appointed you arbiter of what is “Germany” and “destroyed Germany?”

            why do you think you’re that important?

          • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

            To the contrary — the onus is on you to show that the nation-state of Germany, which clamored for reunification and shed blood both literal and figurative to do so, is some sort of meaningless invention. The onus is on you to show that an ethnically homogenous nation consisting primarily of people whose families have not moved in centuries is utterly meaningless and will be precisely the same if the land is taken over by people whose ancestors spent tens of thousands of years in Africa and the Middle East. It’s your responsibility to shore up the assertion that making a total and irrevocable change in the demographic composition of a nation does anything other than render it meaningless.

            The vast majority of Europeans don’t share your magic-dirt philosophy. Germany is defined as the maximum amount of land that can be taken, and held, by people of German ancestry. When the Germans are gone, there won’t be a Germany. There will be an Upper Namibia.

          • Unknown

            What’s “Germany as we know it”? Your imaginings from a couple of visits? Or I have read your blogs badly and missed something?

            Tongue in cheek: if it was so great, why did your “saxon” forebears leave?
            Would be interesting to overlay the realpolitik of the Cold War with your interesting bit of writing.

          • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

            ESPN. The coverage is excellent.

            My great-grandparents are long dead and their rationale was never communicated to me. With that said, given the time of their arrival (1919) I would imagine that it had something to do with the Weimar Republic and the whole needing-a-shopping-cart-full-of-banknotes-for-a-loaf-of-bread thing. Hard to say. Given that it took our family the better part of sixty years to leave NYC it couldn’t have been because they wanted to see California.

          • jz78817

            there’s no “onus” on me because I’m not the one claiming Germany is being “destroyed.”

          • Rock36

            Thinking the idea of “modern Germany” is equated to just the 80s or perhaps even the unification (which was 1990) is pretty shortsighted and undermines your position.

          • Vaujot

            Adding: I was referring to your link from the gatestone institute. Should have googled them. Your getting your reporting on the situation here from an islamophobic source.

          • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

            That word — “Islamophobia” — is a neologism and it doesn’t refer to anything real. If you live in the West you have every right to be afraid of Islam as it is practiced in the modern era. I guarantee you that everybody who lives in New York City suffers from a little bit of “Islamophobia”, and with complete justification.

            Is there a word for fear of Nazis?

          • Vaujot

            Would you take me seriously if I made an outrageous claim about the development of Ohio and backed it up with a German source? In particular if a quick search showed that the source has a clear agenda?

          • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

            Depends on the claim, I suppose. Truth is a defense against slander. What do you think the ethnic and religious composition of Germany will be in fifty years? The last three times I was in your country, children were rarer than hen’s teeth.

          • Vaujot

            I don’t know. Probably significantly more Muslim than today. Low fertility is indeed an issue. But we’ll still drink beer, eat pork and won’t have the shariah but the BGB and the Grundgesetz. And the dome in Cologne will still be Roman Catholic.

        • Newton

          the Bible and the Koran are against charging interest. hmmm, that would mean the Torah forbids it. But the “tribe” really follows the Talmud not the Torah. But are the City of London bankers really from the tribe, or are they from Khasaria and have no blood line ties? “I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars – I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you” Revelation 3:9
          Won’t that be a nice day!

          Reply
      • Ken

        We can’t live in a kumbaya world with the population we have. At least not anywhere near to the standards anyone on this site commenting is used to.

        The Earth simply doesn’t have enough resources.

        Either there’s a major technological advancement, a population reduction, or most of the world stays backwards and poor. And how long will those have-nots, who out number the haves stand for it?

        I live fairly eco-conscience and I’m still at 2.2 earths: http://www.footprintcalculator.org

        Reply
        • Zykotec

          I like that page. We put little effort into living eco-consciously apart from what is mandatory here (recycling, hydropower, etc.) and we eat too much processed meats but we end up at almost 3 earths if we don’t change. Taking a few turns I could easily get down to 1.8 without losing anything important.
          That being said, there are quite a few people in the world whose living standards could be improved immensly without costing the earth anything besides more or less virtual money. Improving their living standards could even reduce their footprint. (like, anyone who lives further than 2 miles from their job?) A couple of Billion people are at less than 0.5 earths currently. (no proper housing, no cars, no electricity, no meat, no gadgets)
          And there are currently quite a few people who are living at standards far exceeding 500 earths who we don’t have to keep paying money. Some of those are even pure evil. Some even love to tell the world they are evil and get away with it.
          There are people out there who has a career in traveling around , by plane, telling other people how to better market things that none of us really need…
          Also, if 1 hour of labour cost the same in China as Norway and as in the US, we would save a lot on transportation, and we would create a lot of new jobs. We would also buy a lot less new stuff we didn’t need if it was actually designed to last instead of being designed to be cheap. Which they probably would be if they weren’t all fashion accessories.

          Reply
  13. MrGreenMan

    The Germans said farewell to kings, now the world says farewell to Germans. They should have kept their Emperor and let him keep them out of war, but the constitutional restrictions in place in 1914 made the mass bloodletting happen precisely because autocratic monarchy was out of fashion.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwone/cousins_at_war_01.shtml

    The first cousin of the English king, Kaiser Wilhelm, who wore his family colours instead of his imperial decorations in honor of the British monarchy, never wanted that war.

    They say that around 1000 AD, you could have conversed intelligently with the locals in German from England, through the Low Countries and Denmark, parts of Scandinavia, down to Northern Italy, to the Polish border, and down into the Balkans.

    Reply
  14. Rock36

    Jack, as an AMSP graduate doing my utilization in USAREUR, I would dearly love to chat about this, but this is not venue for me.

    I would recommend read John Boyd’s interview with General von Mellenthin. Good stuff related to what you wrote, and an interesting look into how NATO was looking for operational approaches against Warsaw Pact forces in the mid 70s. I could even send a .pdf of it if you’re truly interested.

    Reply
  15. Will

    I think it’s a bit unfair to say that the German were the “superior” army; when a lot of it comes back to WW1 and the lessons and experiences that were learned during that war. Keep in mind, our best troops, generals and commanders fought during the “The Great War” (e.g. Patton) and showed that US troops were just as good. After all, it’s a lot harder being an invasion force when the opposite side just gives the old ole to its defenses. There are only so many places to land thousands of troops, so losses can become skewed as the opposition can take up solid defensive positions and hold off attacks for long periods of time. This was certainly true of Italian front. I’m not sure the Germans were necessarily “superior” but they certainly had far more experience than most of the Americans, and that counts for something.

    Also, I don’t think Ike was the best General, but he was perfect for the role and what the Allies needed at that time. We needed someone who could be a Diplomat and he was excellent at this; he was able to mostly keep Monty (overrated) in check, let his generals perform and balance the leaders and strategy of the war. It takes a special person to do that and he did it successfully. I think this helped as much as anything else.

    Reply
  16. MrGreenMan

    I remember hearing a WWII tank driver talk about 20 years ago. He said that the shells from the Shermans bounced off the German tanks. The American tanks were crap.

    I can’t recall if it was Eisenhower or Patton who said the thing that won the war for us in Europe was the battle rifle. Mr. Garrand was a great Canuck, and he designed one of the world’s greatest rifles for our boys. The only downside was that blasted “ping”.

    Reply
    • Will

      Truth. The Garand was the best average infantry rifle; however if early adoption of the STG44 and FG42 was more widespread, we would have been in trouble.

      Reply
    • Unknown

      1. Firefly. 17 pounder. Sherman built to deal with German heavy armor. But couldn’t fire HE. Which was the normal job of the normal Shermans – infantry support. US intended to fight tanks with AT weapons
      2. The ping? You’ve just fired off a whole clip and you’re worried about a ping?

      Reply
  17. ScottS

    “Yet in war, the army that proves most successful in making its raw recruits into killers possesses an immeasurable advantage”

    The discussion of this statement could fill volumes, and on the eve of WWII, America certainly lacked the deep history of conflict and related military organization and technology that existed in Europe. Our history is one of military buildup during times of crisis followed by periods of drawdown of fighting skills and resources. For centuries up until WWII Europe had been more or less continuously engaged in wars with the 20th century being among the bloodiest. It stands to reason that Europeans would be more adept at war than Americans.

    Protracted wars are always an education and adaptation process as Hastings acknowledged about the Allied forces in WWII. The American Civil War is an example of learning and adaptation where at the beginning of the war the Confederacy had an advantage in military leadership, marksmanship, and cavalry. By the end of the war, the Union forces had eliminated the leadership and skills gap and the inevitable victory was then the result of economic and numerical superiority. Jack’s comments about the depletion of Germany’s best and brightest can also be extended to the American Civil War where the South was economically, morally and physically devastated. With over 600,000 casualties amounting to approximately 2% of the population (this is more American casualties than were suffered in both world wars), and virtually all men of prime age and capability. The American South was a very long time recovering from this devastation. No matter which side of this conflict your family is tied to, it was the right outcome for the Union to win the Civil War, and the nation that emerged from this dark chapter stood on a stronger moral foundation.

    A more troubling harbinger of things to come is our escalating Culture War which has continued mostly without respite since the 1960’s. The culture war threatens to deprive the nation of pride, competitiveness, confidence and moral foundation from which to confront evil enemies that seek to destroy us. The culture war in the United States is also waged heavily against our men. One of the tenets of oppressive regimes is to gain near total control over every aspect of the lives of it’s people. State controlled religion or the eradication thereof, banning of firearms, limitations open speech and discussion, subjugation of the economy, and control of the education system for the purpose of indoctrination are just a few examples. The education system is the most powerful tool in the culture war to install a value system that is counter to what has been historically accepted. There are still lions among us, but their numbers are decreasing. In the words of Hayley Geftman-Gold, they are often “country music fans and republican gun toters”. They are certainly raised with values different than those being pushed by the progressive left. Recently Alejandro Villanueva tried to explain why he ran out on the football field and stood for the National Anthem, saying, “I think in life, you’re not prepared for a lot of things. I don’t think you’re prepared to have a kid. I don’t think you’re prepared to get married. I don’t think you’re prepared to start one day in the NFL. I think it’s one of those things you have to take in stride and do your best, stick to your family values, stick to the things that you’ve learned throughout your life and try to make the best possible decision.” In other words, in a difficult situation, Villanueva responded instinctively by doing what he knew was right. He didn’t have to stop and think about it, he simply acted. When the day comes that the majority of Americans no longer know instinctively what is right, the war will be over and our adversaries will be our rulers. The German infantry soldiers in WWII responded as true professionals in the most stressful combat environments. The trouble is they were fighting for a morally reprehensible sovereign power, and they were ultimately defeated by young men from Brooklyn to Bakersfield who answered the call to arms in an extraordinary time and returned home to carry on mostly ordinary lives, not the lives of exalted professional warfighters. I will argue that the Americans were the better fighting force because they were raised to know right from wrong, and were supported by a nation who would not let them fail. One nation under God.

    Reply
  18. yamahog

    Though the Germans still lost and managed to kill the most Europeans of any regime ever. It’s a bummer that Hitler chose Jews as the out-group, I get why he did but if he just did a better job of making the gypsies and disabled the out group, I’d be speaking German, we’d have a mars colony, public transit would run on time, and my blood pressure would be lower because I wouldn’t have to talk to someone in Bangalore to solve LDAP issues.

    Reply
    • Unknown

      I know (or hope) yours is a flippant comment, but it still gets a WTF? Pack of warped, incompetent fuckers ran Germany. Man in the High Castle was almost unreadable. What makes you think Bangalore wouldn’t be pumping out crap in the NSDAP future you image?
      Are you a wonder weapon fan, too? Draining the Med soon?

      Reply
      • Yamahog

        How incompetent can they be if they gave the U.S, the U.K and Stalin’s Russia a run for their money?

        But yeah, I’m a huge wonder weapon fan. I really liked watching German rocket science put an American on the moon.

        Reply
        • jz78817

          “How incompetent can they be if they gave the U.S, the U.K and Stalin’s Russia a run for their money?”

          their incompetence was in trying to give all three a “run for their money” at the same time.

          and you’re falling into the trap of assuming if the Germans hadn’t invented modern rocketry, no one else would have.

          Reply
          • Yamahog

            “their incompetence was in trying to give all three a “run for their money” at the same time.”

            That’s fair and it was their undoing but if they were successful, it would have seemed like a genius move. But that’s the same ‘after the fact’/self-evidencing thinking that makes criticism so easy. E.g “Hillary Clinton is a terrible politician and I know that because she lost to Trump”.

            “and you’re falling into the trap of assuming if the Germans hadn’t invented modern rocketry, no one else would have.”

            There’s a reason the Germans were years ahead of everyone else. I’m not sure rocketry would have have a quick enough pay off for America or the Soviet Union to have made the same progress. There isn’t a doubt in my mind that the third reich would have put a man on mars by now if they were successful. They got stuff done, America has become some rich pansy by comparison. It took 4 years to make the Golden Gate bridge, it’s taken something like 7 years and more money (in absolute dollars) to make a new access road for it. People die on our subways because lazy union workers and inept management kick the work down the road. Call me crazy but a government that gets basic services right and cares enough about society to make a utopia happen seems pretty good to me.

          • Panzer

            “You kinda have to show that Germany is a ‘thing’ that is being ‘destroyed'”

            Germany is definitely a ‘thing’ sunshine. I know because I lived there. As for it being ‘destroyed’, well for me the jury is still out on that. There are some very worrying trends, but also some good pushback, so time will indeed tell.

            And Jack is right about you and the rest of the open borders brigade having to prove that this is not something that will harm our society in the long run.
            YOU lot want these policies, so YOU are the ones who have to justify them. Quite simple really.

  19. hank chinaski

    It could be argued that the two World Wars were one long one with a lull, the first the dying throes of monarchy and related alliances and the desire to keep Germany from establishing the colonial presence that England and France had. The second was birthed in its bungled armistice and a reaction to the rise of communism.

    If I were a doughboy, I’d have kept my ass at home and said ‘no’ to the income tax, Federal Reserve, and military industrial complex that we got in return for continental meddling the founders warned us not to do.
    If I were a GI and saw the future where Germans voted in that dumpy GDR frau 4 times and opened their borders, I’d say, ‘screw you guys, I’m going home’.

    On the upside, the Finns are developing telekinesis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ4EQFcFQQo

    Reply
    • jz78817

      It could be argued that the two World Wars were one long one with a lull,

      I subscribe to this newsletter. if France hadn’t insisted on grinding Germany’s nose into the dirt with the Treaty of Versailles there might never have been enough to fuel the rise of ultra-nationalists like Hitler.

      Reply
      • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

        Bit of a lesson there for our modern Kulturkampf, isn’t there? How many otherwise centrist people were “radicalized” by coastal media establishments that felt empowered to put “gender-questioning” men into bathrooms with their eight-year-old daughters?

        Reply
  20. -Nate-Nate

    “I agree. So what happens when a country is demographically replaced by people who have zero desire to integrate?” .
    .
    For me, _this_ is the thing .
    .
    Assimilate or perish .
    .
    -Nate

    Reply
  21. Aoletsgo

    I believe the historian Blutarsky was right when he said the biggest mistake in WWII was when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

    Reply
  22. newton

    WWI and WWII were planned by the City of London banker cabal to:
    establish Israel (Balfour declaration)
    destroy Germany (competition for their planned world gov’t)
    destroy Czarist Russian and replace with Bolshevik Communism
    unify Europe and eventually the world under their control
    establish central bank in USA supported by income tax
    read about the Kalergi plan

    Reply
  23. DirtRoads

    Seems a lot of folks here know, or at least pretend to know. quite a bit about the history of WWII and a bit of Europe. Not too surprising. Here’s a theory my mother put forward, which dovetails with anyone’s belief in reincarnation… A lot of the people who died during the war came back. Here we are, baby boomers and the like. We have a spiritual history of the war, and that’s why it fascinates us, regardless of the mess it made.

    Reply
  24. Richard

    I disagree.

    The US Army Air Force removed the Luftwaffe as a serious factor before D-Day. The Allies won the air war . Our air forces were better.

    The Royal Navy, the Royal Canadian Navy, and The US Navy sank the German Navy. The German Navy was removed as a serious factor before D-Day. The Allies won the naval war.Our navies were better.

    On the ground, by far the greatest percentage of casualties were caused by artillery. The US Army’s artillery was the best in the world, followed closely by the Royal Army. Patton, a tanker, credited the artillery with winning the war.

    The most important weapon for the individual infantryman is his rifle. The M1 Garand was far superior to its Mauser counterpart. Where it counted, allied weapons and their application were better.

    The German ground forces were tactically proficient, but they had had lots,of practice. They were also fighting on the defensive, with the advantages of interior lines. By contrast, the US was still shipping divisions into the European Theater up to the end of the war. The allied generals never got their full team onto the field, but they won anyway.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *