Announcement

**Jean-Loup** · 02-04-2014, 01:54 PM

Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems to me that when the odds were even, the Germans always had the upper hand agaisnt all allied forces in WWII. Most of the important allied victories were made with such vast numerical and material supremacy, that they could only win.

JL

**Luftm40** · 02-04-2014, 04:13 PM

...but that is the point of "Total War"...to overwhelm your opponent with every means available. The Allies, and Americans in particular grasped this concept and played the game brutally well. The overwhelming industrial might that backed up the Allied war effort was an integral part of their military victory in WWII. I always find these German revisionist "we really should have won" works amusing. I haven't read the book, but from the reviews a truck could be driven through the gaps in the author's reasoning. Using KIA General officers as a litmus for leadership? Really? I would think an Army that frequently loses its most senior and experienced officers in tactical combat engagements is doing something wrong. How many German Generals died in Allied air or artillery attacks? I reckon the number is high...because the Allies had overwhelming superiority in these areas. And how many were killed in idiotic "last stand" encirclement scenarios ordered by their totalitarian leadership? I could go on......

**Willi Z.** · 02-04-2014, 05:46 PM

That's not the point of the book...that is what some reviewer said and I think it is idiotic as well...I should have known better.....

The book also has nothing to do with material superiority; focus is on officer education/ training and the staff system from 1901 to 1940.

He is tremendously critical of the German General Staff during WWII and the conduct of the officer corps during that regime.

He also points out in great detail how the General Staff system, while effective during Molkte's (the elder) time, failed during WWI and WWII. And how it was not the correct model to emulate.

**pasoleati** · 02-05-2014, 01:44 AM

Luftm40:

1. "Total war" as practiced by the US was made possible only through its unique geographical position. This position made it basically safe from enemy attacks against its industry and it also gave it the position of not facing any serious loss of independence even if it lost the war. Yes, had the US lost WW2, 99.99999 % of US population would have had no difference in their lives.

2. An inseparable part of "total" war is that civilians become the main target. In other words, those who approve waging of total war, also approve of targeting civilians.

3. What made that total war possible is air power, a branch of arms that is much better suited to attack civilians than military targets. During the 20th century, air power killed far more civilians than soldiers, something that air power aficionades usually brush aside.

4. Not every country can adopt a doctrine based on industrial resources. Guess which doctrine is closer to Israeli doctrine, German or American?

**pasoleati** · 02-05-2014, 03:58 AM

Addenda:

5. What Germany was facing in both wars is akin to a situation in which both Canada and Mexico would have much superior material resources and their combined aim would be the destruction ("containment" as an euphemism) of the US. I do think it would change the perspective a bit.

6. There are three cases when the continental US has been subject to acts of total war. The longest case resulted in an ethno-cultural cleansing on the continent. The second, the ACW, struck wounds that are still unhealed and the third one, 9/11, caused a tantrum akin to a spoiled child. In other words, being in the receiving end of "well-grasped total war" isn't so nice.

Announcement

Command Culture: Officer Education in the U.S. Army and the German Armed Forces, 1901

Command Culture: Officer Education in the U.S. Army and the German Armed Forces, 1901

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread