Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 114

Thread: What a German soldier of WWII thought of US soldiers.

  1. #1
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Texarkana, Texas

    What a German soldier of WWII thought of US soldiers.

    This was a question posted on Quora Digest.
    What did the German soldiers of WWII think of British, US, Canadian, and Soviet soldiers?

    The person who answered, claims to have interviewed a survivor of the 276th Volksgrenadier Division

    Americans: "Enthusiastic amateurs with a disposition to aggression I'd never seen in any other nation's sons." If there was something he noticed different between Americans and the other European Allies, it was how they reacted to an attack. The other allies would immediately return fire and edge their way to a more favorable position. Americans would immediately return fire, bring a punishing rain of artillery or air power on top of whatever they were fighting, and move to counterattack as soon as the rain of death ended. While he did not believe that an American infantryman or tanker was particularly skilled compared to British or German counterparts, they more than compensated for it with sheer, unadulterated, unapologetic combat aggression.
    I don't have any comments or observations I care to share, but I thought it was interesting, and thought some of you might also.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigguy View Post
    This was a question posted on Quora Digest.
    What did the German soldiers of WWII think of British, US, Canadian, and Soviet soldiers?

    The person who answered, claims to have interviewed a survivor of the 276th Volksgrenadier Division



    I don't have any comments or observations I care to share, but I thought it was interesting, and thought some of you might also.
    Every European nation had centuries of its own individual history with the Germans, and they had spent centuries fighting each other. War wasn't new to their cultures, but they had done enough of it that they weren't necessarily going to go in with utter recklessness.

    We had none of that, aside from a taste of European warfare in 1917. Our closest cultural memory was of the Indian Wars, where we used racism and genocide as weapons. I remember Jeff Cooper saying that racism was a key component driving Marines to kill Japanese soldiers in the Pacific theater. Add to that a towering national indignation after Pearl Harbor plus the overwhelming logistical support that made our air and artillery power possible, and it was perfectly logical to use shock and awe by absolutely hammering anyone who had the temerity to mess with us before sending in the infantry.

    We would do well to rekindle that spirit (minus the racism and genocide) in all of our affairs, whether foreign or domestic.


    Okie John

  3. #3
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by okie john View Post
    We had none of that, aside from a taste of European warfare in 1917. Our closest cultural memory was of the Indian Wars
    Okie,

    I would revisit American history. We had much more war experience than you state and the Indian Wars were most certainly not the most recent collective memory. Besides WWI....

    Banana Wars
    Mexican Punitive Expedition
    Philippine Insurrection
    Boxer Rebellion
    Spanish-American War

    .....all of which came after the Indian Wars. Given that the vast majority of our troops in these conflicts were volunteer citizen-soldiers instead of professional soldiers, I'd say we had quite the cultural underpinning for knowing what a good fight was.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Back at Bragg
    Damn private military university education......

  5. #5
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Texarkana, Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by TGS View Post
    I'd say we had quite the cultural underpinning for knowing what a good fight was.
    ^^^^ This.

    It seems to me that the big difference with the American of then and now is the mindset of the citizens. Those "ill-trained" troops were working boys that came from farms and factories in an America that wasn't a well-fare state. They were tough and independent. They were accustom to taking care of themselves. When something needed done, they got up and did it.
    That applied to the leadership as well.

    European troops came from a centuries long tradition of simply following the leadership of the nobility class. The officer corps of WWII European countries came from that same nobility class. They didn't identify with their troops in the way American officers did. They didn't come up though the ranks, they were born to it.

    An American officer could and would ask things of his troops that European officers wouldn't and couldn't, because the American troops knew that the officer was in it with them.

    One good example of this was America's willingness to send bombers into occupied Europe during the day. England wouldn't do it because the casualty rate was too high. A noble couldn't order his subjects to take such losses.

    Americans knew that it simply had to be done, rolled up their sleeves and go to it. The American crews were willing to take the punishment because each and every one of them grew up with a sense of personal responsibility. They weren't doing it for "King and country." They were doing it for ma, pa, and their little sisters and brothers.

    I fear that too many Americans today don't understand the crucial difference between a citizen and a subject. The potential for risk and great sacrifice comes with the former, but the rewards of charting your own destiny are worth it. The later derives all rights and the privilege of his very existence from his liege. Neither his safety, nor his prosperity is in his own hands.

    We don't call our President king just yet. (Though many think the current one feels that he is one.) But it seems to me that a growing percentage of our population makes kingly demands of the government. They demand a minimum level of prosperity and safety as though those are things that can only be granted, rather than earned.

    ETA: Well I guess I did have some comments to share.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    TX
    Just finished reading Rick Atkinson's Liberation Trilogy, a fantastic look at WWII in Europe and North Africa from Operation Torch through VE day.
    He talks a lot about the "weight of metal" that the US brought to bear- artillery, ammo, replacement of all kinds of materiel that Germany simply couldn't match. The numbers are mind boggling.
    Also some quotes illustrative of that aggression spoken of above.
    In one fight the Germans were close enough to taunt "Take a 10 minute break, we'll be back."
    The response: "F**k you, we'll still be here!"
    And when McAuliffe was asked to clarify his famous "Nuts!" reply:
    "We will kill every German son of a bitch that tries to enter this city."
    My grandfather was in a field artillery unit of the 36th Infantry. One of the few stories he told me was about shooting a German motorcycle scout. With a howitzer 😱

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by TGS View Post
    Okie,

    I would revisit American history. We had much more war experience than you state and the Indian Wars were most certainly not the most recent collective memory. Besides WWI....

    Banana Wars
    Mexican Punitive Expedition
    Philippine Insurrection
    Boxer Rebellion
    Spanish-American War

    .....all of which came after the Indian Wars. Given that the vast majority of our troops in these conflicts were volunteer citizen-soldiers instead of professional soldiers, I'd say we had quite the cultural underpinning for knowing what a good fight was.
    I think that we agree far more than we disagree.

    My point was that through centuries of constant ongoing total war, the Europeans developed various traditions and cultural concepts about warfare that led them to behave the German soldier described. But the Americans didn't have that, so we fought in a very different way.

    The Indian Wars were as long as some European wars, and they were the only wars that we fought on our own soil. The ones you mentioned were relatively short, and they took place overseas with relatively small groups of professional American fighting men. As a result, we fought in a very different way when WWII came along.

    I got the impression that the German in the interview would rather have faced troops who were not Americans because it meant less likelihood of aerial bombardment and/or artillery strikes before the ground troops got in on the act, because as you noted, we had a good cultural underpinning for fighting. It just came from a different set of traditions than those of the European armies.


    Okie John

  8. #8
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by okie john View Post
    The Indian Wars were as long as some European wars, and they were the only wars that we fought on our own soil. The ones you mentioned were relatively short, and they took place overseas with relatively small groups of professional American fighting men.
    Okie,

    I'm not sure we do agree.

    I can't help but be distracted by your misrepresentation of American warfare in this time as well.

    The Phillipine-American war and related Moro rebellion lasted well over a decade, and was largely fought by American citizen-soldiers....not professionals.

    The Mexican-American War was largely fought by citizen soldiers, not professionals.

    The Spanish-American War was largely fought by citizen soldiers, not professionals.

    The Banana Wars are as you described, and it's only one of the examples I listed.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  9. #9
    I would say there are few who have fought who do not have disdain for those they have fought. Is disdain racism? And even if it is so what. We should think of the enemy as brothers?

    Quote Originally Posted by okie john View Post
    Every European nation had centuries of its own individual history with the Germans, and they had spent centuries fighting each other. War wasn't new to their cultures, but they had done enough of it that they weren't necessarily going to go in with utter recklessness.

    We had none of that, aside from a taste of European warfare in 1917. Our closest cultural memory was of the Indian Wars, where we used racism and genocide as weapons. I remember Jeff Cooper saying that racism was a key component driving Marines to kill Japanese soldiers in the Pacific theater. Add to that a towering national indignation after Pearl Harbor plus the overwhelming logistical support that made our air and artillery power possible, and it was perfectly logical to use shock and awe by absolutely hammering anyone who had the temerity to mess with us before sending in the infantry.

    We would do well to rekindle that spirit (minus the racism and genocide) in all of our affairs, whether foreign or domestic.


    Okie John

  10. #10
    Member Peally's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    I would imagine it was relatively easy to have disgust for many of our historical enemies at the time. Fighting "modern, civilized" cultures is our exception as opposed to the rule.
    Semper Gumby, Always Flexible

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •