Comments by "bakters" (@bakters) on "Why No German Reinforcements at Stalingrad?" video.

  1. 2
  2. 2
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. +TIK - I'm not trying to argue they were perfect, but sure enough they didn't look incompetent throughout all the time since 1939 till 1942. They pulled off what appears to be some sort of a miracle quite regularly. Regarding the core of your question, there are reasons why Germans were much better initially than the Allies. For once, it's Reichswehr. A relatively small army, where you needed to be a genius or a hero to even enter the ranks at anything above grunt level. The doctrine, the will, the culture - all of that mattered too, but whatever. I can pretend it didn't, because I don't really need this argument. The only thing that really matters is that Germans were experienced at modern war, while the Allies were not. Bad commanders were kicked out long time ago and people were chosen for their commands more in line with their actual battlefield abilities. While in peacetime armies of the Allies the command was often a result of skilled internal politics. We should also remember that plenty of those former enemies were hired by the Allies post-war, and their opinions were deeply respected. It's rare to do that to the foe you just beat, so my guess is they were the real deal. So I do have reasons to assume that gross incompetence should not be considered until other options are exhausted. Mistakes? Sure. Everybody makes them. Gross incompetence, which your video seems to suggest? An interesting opinion worthy of consideration, but I'm not changing tack based on just that. BTW - I'm not a particular fan of Wehrmacht or even Germany herself.
    1