Why the Germans?

Why has the world be gripped by, to use Von poops words "panzer-obsession", why does everyone like them? Why does everyone always think that they are the best? was it a propaganda thing by the allies to make it look like there war was even worse then it was? Is it because the Nazis were so evil and everyone wants to know that they were a excellent country with the best weaponary?

It is just not about the panzers, but everyone I have talked to says that the Bismarck was the best ship of all time, and if she had not sunk she could have changed the war. Or, the Germans were completely mechanized country with the most mobile and verstile infantry, the ME109 was better then any allied fighter.

And the reasoning is usually always the same, The allies won becuase they fought hard and just overcome the evil nation.

No ever talks about the industrial powers, or the sheer numbers difference, or the fact that Germany was virtually alone.

So why does everyone like the Germans they were cetainly not the best, I just dont understand it.

 

Sometimes I believe because Dr. Goebbels was exceptionally good at his job...

I have to admit that I suffer from the German vehicle fixation myself to a great degree, I reckon it's mostly down to the sheer variety of types and variants they churned out, but it can be frustrating. For instance on the modelling side, one of Dragon's biggest kits last year was a tropicalised version of the Panzer IV of which some 10 were actually built in wartime. While a decent Comet kit has only just come out and a quality Churchill costs c.£70 from specialist makers. I can find book after book on almost every German vehicle but almost nothing equivalently weighty on the Matilda 2. Much of the German gear was technologically fascinating or excellent but that doesn't fully explain why so much allied stuff is relatively thinly covered.
The Tiger has a lot to answer for too, something about that vehicle really does fascinate, like an easy gateway into the odd world of German vehicles. Ask my kids to draw a tank and that's pretty much what they come up with.

There's a fascination with 'the Baddies' too, and the cool' uniforms & equipment, but I'd contend that Tommy Atkins or the early war Poilu looked just as fine in his full fighting gear. There's a whole layer of hagiographic coverage given to Wittman etc. by books like those strangely Barbara Cartland-esque Kurowski/stackpole style ones ("his steely grey eyes surveyed the steely carnage created by his steely Krupp-built steed on the steely Steppes of Russia" etc. etc.) yet, thankfully, almost none of it devoted to the Allies.
I can find chapter and verse written on the most obscure German unit, but sometimes stuff on even quite significant allied formations can only be found in the expensive & often hard to find official histories.

All sides of the war have their story to tell, technologically, militarily, politically etc. the Germans 'enjoying' the most tumultuous time of all perhaps, but that doesn't fully explain the preponderance of detailed coverage given to the axis side, particularly on the Internet.

Thankfully I can't help feeling that the balance is being redressed somewhat of late, and more deserved credit/research/detail is being given to the Allies, rather than purely focusing on how interesting the axis is/was in it's surprising achievements and tremendous lows.

Blah.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

I think it's mainly the influence of post war Hollywood, which has tended to portray them as hard-nosed, tough and glamourous, while allies are shown as just normal men and women. It's like comparing your Uncle Bert with Darth Vader, one's mundane the other is cinematic brilliance despite being a bad guy.

There's also a hint of historic perversity to it. The actuality of the history has become just too samey for many, who prefer something which seems a bit more radical as an opinion, even if it leads them down the avenue of misunderstanding and often the cul de sac (dead end) of ignorance.

Finally there's a tiny touch of political maneuvering to some of it. Without opening an old can of worms the bombing of Dresden is an example. Originally touted as a war crime by Goebbels, the myth was adapted by the Soviets during the Cold War as an example of the heartlessness of capitalism/imperialism, popularised by revisionists and deniers like David Irving in the 60's/70's and more recently held as a figurehead by neo-nazis as part of their excusing Third Reich attrocities.

The mix of those over six decades can lead to a confusing message for younger citizens, many of whom them adopt their consumerist tastes to simply plum for whatever looks "coolest".

 

I'm reminded of that scene from Band of Brothers where the US troops are riding in trucks down an autobahn. In the center median tens of thousands of German POWs virtually without guards are marching into captivity. There is the occasional horse drawn wagon in the column.

On of the GI's looks at this pathetic column of humanity and shouts something like "What were you thinking?! Going to war with wagons?! Meet General frickin' Motors!"

 

Exactly, Adam, Goebbels was the only truly competent nazi, the one whose work still endures. Even yesterday I had an unpleasant brush with a bloody clueless teenager in a bar, wearing an Ironcross t-shirt, without having the slightest notion of what it might be...

Why did that guy Mosley fom Formula 1 was caught in that scandal with those girlies wearing some nazi regalia instead of GI regalia?

 

Well, I think a lot of it is simply that while we know what 'we' were like, we don't know much about how 'they' thought. Therefore the compulsion to study 'them'.

I've read truckloads of material on the war written by Western sources. I really enjoy reading from Russian and Axis sources, as it gives you a different viewpoint, and a look at the assumptions they operated on. I'm not defending some of the things they did, mind you, but it makes for fascinating reading. Some of the things done by the West don't hold up well to scrutiny 60 years later, but, they were done at the time, and can't be changed. Hindsight, and all that.

 

I think there is also the reality that Germany -- and Japan for that matter -- had been preparing for war a lot longer than the US or UK or any other country before the War had even begun. Germany had more modern equipment at the start because it wanted as advanced a military as it could have. Similarly, it's soldiers had better training, and there were more of them, and they had the relatively easy experience of having overrun most of Continental Europe and North Africa by the time England or America got into the War. So at the time the war started for the Americans, Germany really did have the better prepared military.

Was Germany the best? Clearly, no. Tactically, Germany was still controlled by a lunatic dictator who made poor decisions and whose sycophantic followers also often made poor decisions. The best military power would not have given up on destroying English air power a mere few days before it would have been destroyed. It would not have opened a huge second front with Russia, when it could have far more easily have taken England, regrouped and then gone East. It would not have done a lot of things that, thankfully, it did do. Thus Germany lost. The best do not lose. Thus Germany was not the best.

 

I think the stigma goes way before National Socialist Germany and it boils down to two things that we have all heard. That the Germans were a very 'efficient' people and that their military had 'the most beautiful uniforms in the world' so much that countries throughout the world adopted them. To this day we hear about 'German Engineering' and equate that to quality. If only the Tiger had passed the same quality testing that today's Mercedes Benz cars do. Perhaps it was the quality in their slave labor?

 

Just musing - why does everyone want to buy a BMW or Mercedes today?

( And don't say it's because their engineering or build quality is unquestionable - I used to sell the things.... )

 

For the 'poseur' value I suppose, Martin?
I've studied German & Italian POWs in Britain purely because it's something that was effectively overlooked until recently. The presence of Italians on the land made an enormous difference to successfully gathering the 1941-3 harvests, because of the massive shortage of British manpower and the fact that the Battle of the Atlantic could still have gone either way. Germans after Sept '44 also helped with agriculture and the rebuilding programme generally, since millions of British men and women were still tied up in the forces. I often think the PoWs unconsciously helped keep Britain in the war.

 

We (the Allies) did a lot to shape the image of the Germans too. From our commanders boasting up their opposition (to make themselves bigger when they beat them) to the stories from veterans in the line.

The germans had their view during the war of their opponents, but after it was all about the maschinslacht. (slaughter by machines)

As for our own units, it's like Von Poop says. Hard and expensive to come by. My pet division (51st Highland) is somewhat easier to separate from the British Army. Beeing a scottish formation with pipes and all it stands out. Most people will have heard of the Desert Rats, but not all will know that it is the 7th Armd.

Personally I think the best antidote to the fasination is to talk to a veteran.

 

A good idea I will post the original thread to sapper

Ok so what about the regular joe who knows very little of the war and in some cases those that to konw a bit. For example, my father in law thought that the Germans were completely and utterly mechanized, I did set him straight and was about to bring out the books but thought better of it.

Anyway, this is a man who although dosn't know all the details, but at least knows enough to have agood conversation, and yet he was even swayed by the illusion of Germans invincibility.

 

Just noticed something here, Otto is also taken over by the German obsession

the new post symbol, it appears to be a panther.

An image of a Wehrmacht soldier, as well as an american on the other side, is that a ranger?

 

Otto a crypto-Nazi? And what kind of a name is that? We need Mussolini to Stauffenberg him!

 

I'm not fascinated with them at all, I have respect for what they accomplished militarily, but that's as far as it goes.
I have to agree with VP here, there has always been a fascination with bad asses, but I really don't know why. It is curious to me as well, why people find that attractive.
My opinion of them has changed somewhat over the past few years, but I grew up believing that they were not to be trusted. That probably has something to do with family history, in fact relatives that still live over there, to this day don't trust Germans. Funny, but understandable.
Honestly I personally believe it's just this simple, some people like the bad guys, some like the good guys. jmho!

 

yes,the germans had better soldiers,tactics,smallarms m/g,s,ships,sailors,tanks,other a.f.v,s,aircraft,helmets,generals and all the rest.its ace..lee.

 

Possibly for the same reason good women like bad men. Go figure the depths of the human mind!

So much better this and that and they got themselves clobbered, right? I suppose the others must have been doing something right after all, eh?

 

Here's a rather lengthy article on this subject. I had an excellent discussion / debate with the author at the time he put it out.

Military History Online

 

probably one of the reasons I'm still single!! Chicks want the bad boys!!