Writing a research paper

[Hawk8762]

Totally random I know, but I am doing a research paper on Normandy, specifically the German side. My thesis being that the allied invasion was a success, largely due to bad luck for the Germans, as well as factors such as poor or conflicting leadership, etc.
I know the developers and people on this forum are big into digging into the history, so id love to hear of any sources that may be of use!
Thanks in advance guys

 

[Ddraig5400]

Normandy from the German perspective....

I'd recommend 'Steel Inferno: 1st SS Panzer Corps in Normandy' by Michael Reynolds, he gives a detailed account on the 1st and 12th SS Panzer Divisions that fought extensively in Normandy, and it focuses more on the soldiers than the commanders.

 

[EUG_MadMat]

regarding the purely German aspect of the campaign, Niklas Zetterling's 'Normandy 1944 - German Military Organization, Combat Power & Organizational Effectiveness' & Richard Hardgreaves' 'The Germans in Normandy' are the first sources coming to my mind.

Now, I must say that crediting the Allied victory on purely bad luck on the German side seems a bit exaggerated, IMO.

 

[Hawk8762]

regarding the purely German aspect of the campaign, Niklas Zetterling's 'Normandy 1944 - German Military Organization, Combat Power & Organizational Effectiveness' & Richard Hardgreaves' 'The Germans in Normandy' are the first sources coming to my mind.

Now, I must say that crediting the Allied victory on purely bad luck on the German side seems a bit exaggerated, IMO.

"Purely" is a bit strong. But I do believe that it played a large part- bad luck AND a series of poor command decisions and mistakes. From my research so far, the 21st panzer was easily within range of the beaches, for example, but were late in receiving orders, and when they were ordered to get involved, received conflicting orders.
Hitler did not approve of armor reserves being committed to battle, until 3PM that afternoon.
Whether or not that would have turned the tide of Normandy, amongst other things, I can not say for sure. But I do think the outcome for the allies would have been much more negative overall as a result.

But thank you for the sources, ill see if I can get my hands on those sources

 

[EUG_MadMat]

From my research so far, the 21st panzer was easily within range of the beaches, for example, but were late in receiving orders, and when they were ordered to get involved, received conflicting orders.

Not only was it in range, but it demonstrated it could advance to the beach on D-Day, since Kampfgrupe Rauch did it, reaching Lion-sur-Mer and effectively separating the British & Canadian landing zones. But unsupported, Rauch had to turn back.

 

[Archangel85]

"Purely" is a bit strong. But I do believe that it played a large part- bad luck AND a series of poor command decisions and mistakes. From my research so far, the 21st panzer was easily within range of the beaches, for example, but were late in receiving orders, and when they were ordered to get involved, received conflicting orders.
Hitler did not approve of armor reserves being committed to battle, until 3PM that afternoon.

How is any of that bad luck? It's a poor command structure, made worse by the normal friction of war. Whether a major armored counter attack could have thrown the allies back into the sea is highly doubtful. Most likely it could have at best pinned the allies down closer to the sea, which means the allies are falling back towards the big guns on the battleships to lend support. It could have been bloodier and more prolonged than the actual historical timeline, but I simply can't imagine any combination of "lucky" breaks for the Germans that could have turned things around to such a degree that the Allies lose the beachhead.

Anzio was pretty much the best case scenario for containing an amphibious landing at that stage in the war, and the Allies still managed to hold that beachhead.

 

[Ktonos]

Command is a part of a side's capabilities in a conflict, so saying that poor command was a wildcard in the Overlord outcome, is like saying that the obsolete French armor doctrine was a wildcard for the invasion of 1940.

Hitler did not give the order to commit panzer reserve in Normandy because up to the last minute he was convinced it was a faint attack to draw said panzer divisions away from what he expected to be the main Allied invasion in Pais-de Calai (SP?). And if this was so, then intelligence and counterintelligence rather than luck were the defining factors.

 

[Yossarian23]

That's not "bad luck," that's the definition of military inferiority.

 

[Hawk8762]

That's not "bad luck," that's the definition of military inferiority.

The weather that delayed the invasion the first day, and was still persistent the second day (the day they chose to go anyways)
Kept a German naval patrol in.
Imagine if that patrol went out, and was able to provide advance warning of the allied invasion

 

[Nordhammer]

The weather that delayed the invasion the first day, and was still persistent the second day (the day they chose to go anyways)
Kept a German naval patrol in.
Imagine if that patrol went out, and was able to provide advance warning of the allied invasion

Dealing more with "what ifs",you've used 'Operation Tiger' as a model for your above scenario?

Keep in mind the Allies were going to get and hold a beachhead,the "what ifs" would change how long till the breakout occurred and the causalities lists.

 

[Yossarian23]

The weather that delayed the invasion the first day, and was still persistent the second day (the day they chose to go anyways)
Kept a German naval patrol in.
Imagine if that patrol went out, and was able to provide advance warning of the allied invasion

First: Your forum profile states that you're 22 years old. If you are actually younger than that, please say so.

I understand what you're saying about the weather, and your previous hypothetical re: orders that were never given that probably should have been, fully. You appear to have done your homework, pun intended; you seem to know the facts of the case re: the Normandy invasion. That's respectable, and I commend you for gaining an understanding of the facts before asking for more detailed info.

I assert that your error stems from a misunderstanding of the way "luck," responsibility, and especially, culpability, work in our culture. The argument that you are making, in favor of the Nazis, is an argument you can't win, not in this paper, because whether or not you realize it, the argument you're making strikes at the heart of how every first world nation assesses 1. culpability and 2. military competence. You're either suffering from an extreme misunderstanding of appropriate situations to which one might apply the phrase "bad luck," or you're arguing that no amount of preparation matters, command structure doesn't matter, unity of command doesn't matter, balance of risks doesn't matter, and that the Nazis got their asses kicked not because they goddamn lost, not because German command failed time after time after time until the center could not hold and no matter the elan of the brave young Nazi troops, the Allies tripped over their own feet less, and when the Allied command failed, the men on the line were able to absorb those failures and keep moving.

Germany had infinity chances to not suffer defeat on the beaches of Normandy. The German people could have not allowed fascism to run riot over their fatherland and pretend everything was okay when their neighbors went missing. If there was one single German man alive who would stand up to a diminutive, shrieking, wannabe-painter with a bad haircut, and stop him from sending Germany's most promising youth to die on two fronts at once, then they could have avoided defeat. If they had made the right decision instead of the wrong one at many many junctures, they could have avoided defeat on the beaches of Normandy. If they had not engaged in a scorched-earth campaign across fucking goddamn brave little Belgium when they were starting WWI 30 years prior, they probably could have avoided defeat at Normandy. If they had treated Belgium with just an ounce of respect, if their Foreign Minister had not ADMITTED to sending the Zimmerman Telegram, if they weren't so German all the time then yeah, the largest armada ever assembled in human history wouldn't have landed on that beach and run, headlong, into machine gun fire, just to wreck their faces. If that's your definition of bad luck, then nothing means anything.

Your thesis is actually just nihilism.

 

[MarcoRossolini]

I'll add the comment as well that your thesis smacks of the German generals postwar trying to cover up their defeat by saying it was all bad luck or the fuhrer's fault. This routinely happens in my own area of interest the Eastern Front where German commanders couldn't admit to having been outperformed by Soviet commanders in numerous areas, notably later in the war and especially when it came to maskirovka.
If German success in the event of an invasion hinged upon whether they were lucky or not then that is a hallmark of a poor commander. Good commanders make it so luck shouldn't be a factor, or attempt to ensure that luck is as small a factor as they possibly can. As another poster remarked, this is really about friction and the Germans failed to deal with that.

 

[Yossarian23]

I'll add the comment as well that your thesis smacks of the German generals postwar trying to cover up their defeat by saying it was all bad luck or the fuhrer's fault. This routinely happens in my own area of interest the Eastern Front where German commanders couldn't admit to having been outperformed by Soviet commanders in numerous areas, notably later in the war and especially when it came to maskirovka.
If German success in the event of an invasion hinged upon whether they were lucky or not then that is a hallmark of a poor commander. Good commanders make it so luck shouldn't be a factor, or attempt to ensure that luck is as small a factor as they possibly can. As another poster remarked, this is really about friction and the Germans failed to deal with that.

+100

At the end of the day, wars are won by a faction and lost by another faction. But young men on both sides always die.

It is never, ever, acceptable for those in command of the young dead to go back to face the living parents and tell them the sons their nation had entrusted to their command were dead, and the war lost, and the reason was "bad luck."

It's like if you had an infant child, and you hired a babysitter while you went on a date with your spouse. And when you returned, your infant child has been raped and murdered and your house is on fire, and your babysitter is shrugging and saying "I was real unlucky tonight, that's how the cookie crumbles!"

 

[Reichtous]

The western allies won not because of any military skill of any kind, but because of how little of the actual German army they were fighting, how poor that part of the German army was (not due to Western efforts of course), and how massive their industrial and populational advantage propelled them. Just some little tidbits:

- up to 8 to 1 numbers advantage in Normandy, which was more advantage than the soviets at this time
- complete air dominance due to how thin the Luftwaffe was spread (Defence of the Reich, Ostfront) and again massive numbers advantage
- they fought only 2-3 somewhat well equipped mechanized divisions (21st, 12th and Lehr) which all were already half the size compared to a U.S division
- a lot of the divisions in Normandy were damaged divisions recovering from the eastern front that were not even combat ready, they had tons of fresh recruits and lack of equipment

And yet with these massive advantages it still took them a month to secure Caen, months to encircle an army of fractional size, they allowed German counter attacks to travel in a week what they traveled in many weeks before being beaten back. They were the worse fighters through and through, with one German soldier (including recruits) being the equal to 1.5 (of the Western Allies.

Worse motivation, training, equipment, better numbers. Same situation as the Soviets... but they are heralded as the equal and sometimes superior of the German soldier. OK there hahahaha. Maybe better than the Osttruppen or the hordes of untrained recruits seen in some of the SS and infantry divisions, but thats about it.

No amount of luck could have saved the Germans against the odds they faced, as incompetent as the Western Allies were.

 

[MarcoRossolini]

The western allies won not because of any military skill of any kind, but because of how little of the actual German army they were fighting, how poor that part of the German army was (not due to Western efforts of course), and how massive their industrial and populational advantage propelled them. Just some little tidbits:

- up to 8 to 1 numbers advantage in Normandy, which was more advantage than the soviets at this time
- complete air dominance due to how thin the Luftwaffe was spread (Defence of the Reich, Ostfront) and again massive numbers advantage
- they fought only 2-3 somewhat well equipped mechanized divisions (21st, 12th and Lehr) which all were already half the size compared to a U.S division
- a lot of the divisions in Normandy were damaged divisions recovering from the eastern front that were not even combat ready, they had tons of fresh recruits and lack of equipment

And yet with these massive advantages it still took them a month to secure Caen, months to encircle an army of fractional size, they allowed German counter attacks to travel in a week what they traveled in many weeks before being beaten back. They were the worse fighters through and through, with one German soldier (including recruits) being the equal to 1.5 (of the Western Allies.

Worse motivation, training, equipment, better numbers. Same situation as the Soviets... but they are heralded as the equal and sometimes superior of the German soldier. OK there hahahaha. Maybe better than the Osttruppen or the hordes of untrained recruits seen in some of the SS and infantry divisions, but thats about it.

No amount of luck could have saved the Germans against the odds they faced, as incompetent as the Western Allies were.

Oh goody, the Wehraboos have arrived. Continue orientalising everything that isn't Nazi German if it makes you feel better for Nazi Germany's total and utter defeat and annihilation. The more I read, the more I find that saying XYZ side had superior soldiers is largely meaningless and are simply facile statements. Training? Sure, we can go with that, but by 1944 the German army had been bled of many of its very experienced NCOs and junior commanders and was a shadow of its former, very effective, army of 1941.

Remember too that we're dealing with intense fighting over a relatively small area of front, with the forces of democratic states who had to care about losses attack against the forces of a totalitarian state, it is natural it will be slow, methodical and when it collapsed, boy did it fall apart during the breakout!

Anyway, I sense arguments are useless here.

 

[Yossarian23]

The western allies won not because of any military skill of any kind, but because of how little of the actual German army they were fighting, how poor that part of the German army was (not due to Western efforts of course), and how massive their industrial and populational advantage propelled them. Just some little tidbits:

- up to 8 to 1 numbers advantage in Normandy, which was more advantage than the soviets at this time
- complete air dominance due to how thin the Luftwaffe was spread (Defence of the Reich, Ostfront) and again massive numbers advantage
- they fought only 2-3 somewhat well equipped mechanized divisions (21st, 12th and Lehr) which all were already half the size compared to a U.S division
- a lot of the divisions in Normandy were damaged divisions recovering from the eastern front that were not even combat ready, they had tons of fresh recruits and lack of equipment

And yet with these massive advantages it still took them a month to secure Caen, months to encircle an army of fractional size, they allowed German counter attacks to travel in a week what they traveled in many weeks before being beaten back. They were the worse fighters through and through, with one German soldier (including recruits) being the equal to 1.5 (of the Western Allies.

Worse motivation, training, equipment, better numbers. Same situation as the Soviets... but they are heralded as the equal and sometimes superior of the German soldier. OK there hahahaha. Maybe better than the Osttruppen or the hordes of untrained recruits seen in some of the SS and infantry divisions, but thats about it.

No amount of luck could have saved the Germans against the odds they faced, as incompetent as the Western Allies were.

So the German people were conquered and made to kneel before their victors, with their capital city occupied by foreign troops, as the result of a war that THEY STARTED, in alleged self-defense, twice in the course of one generation, am I wrong?

Yeah, get your übermenschen on.

 

[spartansociety]

So the German people were conquered and made to kneel before their victors, with their capital city occupied by foreign troops, as the result of a war that THEY STARTED, in alleged self-defense, twice in the course of one generation, am I wrong?

Yeah, get your übermenschen on.

I'm not sure you can really conflate Hitlers invasion of Europe in WW2 with the German attack in WW1. A pretty good case can be made that France, Britain and Russia were at least as much to blame for war in 1914 as Germany was. Also, the allies never made it to the German capital in WW1, by the end of the war the Germans were still in France.

 

[Yossarian23]

So the German people were conquered and made to kneel before their victors, with their capital city occupied by foreign troops, as the result of a war that THEY STARTED, in alleged self-defense, twice in the course of one generation, am I wrong?

Yeah, get your übermenschen on.

Oh, and just a quick update, in case you haven't been paying attention:

The Jews, who started zero (0) world wars, have a sovereign state, and they're a nuclear power.

The Third Reich does not own a square inch of carpet. Its offspring, Germany, is not a nuclear power.

And the original Übermensch, Friedrich Nietzsche, he never did a single day of real work in his life. He lived unmarried, with his sister, until he died of syphillis.

 

[Yossarian23]

I'm not sure you can really conflate Hitlers invasion of Europe in WW2 with the German attack in WW1. A pretty good case can be made that France, Britain and Russia were at least as much to blame for war in 1914 as Germany was. Also, the allies never made it to the German capital in WW1, by the end of the war the Germans were still in France.

I got overexcited with my prose and made a factual error. Nobody got to the capital in WWI. I apologize.

But the Germans crossed the Belgian border, and not only that, they employed scorched-earth tactics all the way across Belgium because the King, in defiance of German demands, ordered all of the major infrastructure destroyed, to impede German progress while the Allies got their shit together. Those Belgians saved the Allies before the war even really started.

 

[spartansociety]

I got overexcited with my prose and made a factual error. Nobody got to the capital in WWI. I apologize.

But the Germans crossed the Belgian border, and not only that, they employed scorched-earth tactics all the way across Belgium because the King, in defiance of German demands, ordered all of the major infrastructure destroyed, to impede German progress while the Allies got their shit together. Those Belgians saved the Allies before the war even really started.

Fair enough.

You may want to stop the references to Nazi ideology and your Zionism vs Nazism comments though. That sort of stuff will get this thread closed real quick.