German Soldiers of World War II: Why They Were the Best, and Why They Still Lost

Mark Weber
Institute for Historical Review 
(2600 words)

The German soldiers of World War II have often been portrayed, both during the war and in the decades since, as simple-minded, unimaginative and brutish. Hollywood movies and popular U.S. television shows have for years contrasted confident, able and “cool” American GIs with slow-witted, cynical and cruel Germans.

German soldiers like these
fought with unmatched ability,
daring and resourcefulness

“Propaganda is an inescapable ingredient of modern conflict,” British journalist and historian Max Hastings has noted:

“In the Second World War, it was considered essential for the struggle to defeat the German army that the peoples of the Grand [Allied] Alliance should be convinced of the qualitative superiority of their fighting men to those of the enemy. One [American] dogface or one [British] tommy was worth three wooden-headed krauts. Hitler’s robots could never match the imagination and initiative of Allied soldiers on the battlefield …”

Major wartime American motion pictures portrayed German soldiers as dull-witted and simplistic. In the decades since the war, Hastings notes, “a spirit of military narcissism, nourished by such films as ‘The Longest Day,’ ‘A Bridge Too Far’ and ‘The Battle of the Bulge,’ has perpetuated mythical images of the Allied and German armies.” / 1

In accord with the prevailing propaganda image of the enemy, Britain’s wartime premier scornfully disparaged German soldiers and officers. In a 1941 radio address Winston Churchill spoke of “the Nazi war machine, with its clanking, heel-clicking, dandified Prussian officers … [and] the dull, drilled, docile, brutish masses of the Hun soldiery plodding on like a swarm of crawling locusts.” / 2

Like so much else that the public has been told about the Second World War, this demeaning image bore little relation to reality. As specialists of military history who have looked into the matter agree, the men of Germany’s armed forces — the Wehrmacht — performed with unmatched ability and resourcefulness throughout the nearly six years of conflict.

Trevor N. Dupuy (pictured), a noted American military analyst, US Army Colonel, and author of numerous books and articles, studied the comparative performance of the soldiers of World War II. On average, he concluded, 100 German soldiers were the equivalent of 120 American, British or French soldiers, or 200 Soviet soldiers.

“On a man for man basis,” Dupuy wrote, “German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances [emphasis in original]. This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost.” / 3

Other respected military historians, such as Martin van Creveld and John Keegan, have made comparable assessments. Max Boot draws a similar conclusion in his detailed book, War Made New.

“Man for man,” writes this influential author and military historian, “the Wehrmacht was probably the most formidable fighting force in the world until at least 1943, if not later. German soldiers were even known for showing more initiative than the soldiers of democratic France, Britain, and the United States. / 4

Another scholar who has written about this is Ben H. Shepherd, an author of several books who teaches history at Glasgow Caledonian University in Scotland. In a recent detailed work, Hitler’s Soldiers:

The German Army in the Third Reich, Shepherd dismantles the image of “zombie-like obedience popularly ascribed to the German military.” In fact, the Wehrmacht “stressed qualities such as flexibility, daring and independent thinking,” and “Nazi ideology placed great importance upon qualities such as courage, endurance, resourcefulness and strength of character, as well as upon comradeship.” He also takes note of “the stress that the German army placed on superior organization. At all levels, the German army was more effectively organized than all the opposing armies it faced …” / 5

Looking at the 1940 campaign in France, Shepherd writes: “… It was the Germans’ own strength that enabled them to triumph so spectacularly. Among other things, they profited from an imaginative and daring operational plan. But if one single, overall reason for the German army’s triumph in the west can be pinpointed, it is that its doctrinal approach to tactics and operations far outclassed that of its opponents. At all levels, it possessed qualities of daring and adaptability, and a capacity to react to the rapidly changing battlefield situation … The qualities of the German soldier, and the ability of commanders at all levels to think and act independently and effectively, were indeed key to German victory …” / 6

Even after the tide of war had turned, he writes, German troops fought well. “The army sustained its initial success thanks to high levels of training, cohesion and morale among its troops, and thanks also to excellent coordination with the Luftwaffe [air force] … Much has been made of the German soldier’s qualitative superiority in the [June-July 1944] Normandy campaign, and there is indeed much to be said in this. One especially exhaustive study of the [German] Westheer in Normandy concludes that, all other things being equal, a hundred Germans soldiers would have made an even fight against 150 Allied soldiers.” / 7

“As a result of all this,” says Shepherd, “German army units exhibited great staying power in defense [that is, especially during the final year of the war]. They also exhibited great resourcefulness and flexibility … From 1943 onwards, the German army executed a fighting retreat of unparalleled tenacity, against an increasingly formidable Red Army in the east, and a Western Allied coalition powered increasingly by the economic and military might of the United Sates.” / 8

Max Hastings, a respected and widely read British historian, is the author of more than a dozen books, including several about World War II. These include Bomber Command and Armageddon, and a masterful overview, Inferno: The World at War, 1939-1945. In Overlord, a history of the 1944 Allied invasion of northern France, and the tough campaign to take control of Normandy, he writes: / 9

“The Allies in Normandy faced the finest fighting army of the war, one of the greatest that the world has ever seen … The quality of the Germans’ weapons – above all tanks – was of immense importance. Their tactics were masterly … Their junior leadership was much superior to that of the Americans, perhaps also to that of the British … Throughout the Second World War, wherever British or American troops met the Germans in anything like equal strength, the Germans prevailed. They possessed an historic reputation as formidable soldiers. Under Hitler their army attained its zenith.”

Moreover, Hastings points out, the German military fought with equipment and weapons that were usually better than those of their adversaries. “Weapon for weapon and tank for tank, even in 1944, its equipment decisively outclassed that of the Allies in every category save artillery and transport,” he writes. Even during the war’s final years, “the Allied leaders invited their ground troops to fight the Wehrmacht with equipment inferior in every category save artillery and transport. German machine-guns, mortars, machine-pistols, antitank weapons and armored personnel carriers were all superior to those of Britain and America. Above all, Germany possessed better tanks.” / 10

Throughout the war, the German soldiers’ performance remained unequaled. “… The Americans, like the British, never matched the extraordinary professionalism of the German soldier,” Hastings writes. “Few Allied soldiers saw themselves for a moment as other than civilians temporarily in uniform, while their German counterparts possessed an uncanny ability to transform themselves from butchers and bank clerks into natural tacticians. One of the more absurd propaganda clichés of the war was the image of the Nazi soldier as an inflexible squarehead. In reality, the German soldier almost invariably showed far greater flexibility on the battlefield than his Allied counterpart … The inescapable truth is that Hitler’s Wehrmacht was the outstanding fighting force of World War II, one of the greatest in history.” / 11

After the war, Winston Churchill commented on the conflict more truthfully then he had while it still raged. In his memoirs, he compared the record of British and German forces in the Norway campaign of April-June 1940 — the first time during World War II that soldiers of those two nations faced each other in combat.

“The superiority of the Germans in design, management and energy were plain,” Churchill wrote. “At Narvik a mixed and improvised German force barely six thousand strong held at bay for six weeks some twenty thousand Allied troops, and, though driven out of the town, lived to see them depart … The Germans traversed in seven days the road from Namsos to Mosjoen which the British and French had declared impassable … We, who had the command of the sea and could pounce anywhere on an undefended coast, were out-paced by the enemy moving by land across very large distances in the face of every obstacle. In this Norwegian encounter, some of our finest troops, the Scots and Irish Guards, were baffled by the vigour, enterprise and training of Hitler’s young men.” / 12

High-ranking British military figures were similarly impressed with the skill, tenacity and daring of their adversaries. “Unfortunately we are fighting the best soldiers in the world – what men!,” exclaimed Lt. Gen. Sir Harold Alexander, commander of the 15th Army Group in Italy, in a March 1944 report to London. One of General Montgomery’s ablest staff officers, Brig. Frank Richardson, later said of the German soldiers he and his comrades faced: “I have often wondered how we ever beat them.” / 13

“We are fighting the best soldiers in the world — what men!”
— British Lt. Gen. Sir Harold Alexander
(VIDEO : 55 seconds)

Similar views were shared by front-line soldiers on both sides of the conflict. Italian artillery lieutenant Eugenio Conti, who was deployed along with units of other European nations in the savage fighting on the Eastern front in the Winter of 1942-43, later recalled: “I … asked myself … what would have become of us without the Germans. I was reluctantly forced to admit that alone, we Italians would have ended up in enemy hands … I … thanked heaven that they were with us there in the column … Without a shadow of a doubt, as soldiers they have no equal.” / 14   A US Army officer who fought in Belgium in late 1944, Lt. Tony Moody, later spoke about how he and other American GIs had regarded their adversaries: “We felt the Germans were much better trained, better equipped, a better fighting machine than us.” / 15

Even during the final weeks of the war, when the outlook was gloomy indeed, Hitler’s men continued to battle with astonishing verve — as a Soviet intelligence report of March 1945, acknowledged: “Most German soldiers realize the hopelessness of their country’s situation after the January advances, though a few still express faith in German victory. Yet there is no sign of a collapse in enemy morale. They are still fighting with dogged persistence and unbroken discipline.” / 16

Milovan Djilas was a senior figure in Tito’s anti-German partisan army, and after the war served in high-level posts in Yugoslavia. Looking back, he recalled the German soldiers’ endurance, steadfastness and skill as they slowly retreated from rugged mountainous areas under the most daunting conditions:

“The German army left a trail of heroism … Hungry and half naked, they cleared mountain landslides, stormed the rocky peaks, carved out bypasses. Allied planes used them for leisurely target practice. Their fuel ran out … In the end they got through, leaving a memory of their martial manhood.” / 17

However better the training, dedication and resourcefulness of Germany’s fighting men may have been, and however higher the quality of their tanks, machine guns and other equipment, none of that was enough to offset the great quantitative superiority of their enemies.

Despite limited resources, and especially a persistent shortage of petroleum, as well as other formidable challenges, the German nation and their leaders showed extraordinary organizational ability, inventiveness and adaptability in 1942, 1943 and 1944 in utilizing the available human and materiel resources to dramatically increase production of high-quality weapons and equipment. But during that same period, the Soviet Union and the United States harnessed their much more abundant natural resources and manpower reserves to turn out far greater quantities of weapons, ships, bombers, fighter planes, tanks and artillery.

Above all, the major Allied powers had vastly larger numbers of men to send into battle, and many more people to deploy at home to support the war effort. (Contrary to Hollywood’s portrayal of World War II, Soviet forces did much more than those of the US to defeat Germany. Some 80 percent of Germany’s armed forces were destroyed by the Soviets.) / 18

It was the superiority of numbers that was ultimately decisive. The Second World War in Europe was a victory of quantity over quality.

Even as their nation endured ever more crushing privation, destruction and suffering, and as their cities were being pounded into ruins, German fighting men at the front, backed by their people at home, displayed tremendous dedication, discipline and resourcefulness in defiantly withstanding the quantitatively superior might of great enemy powers.

This point was underscored in the somber final German armed forces communique, issued on May 9, 1945: / 19   “In the end the German armed forces succumbed with honor to enormous superiority. Loyal to his oath, the German soldier’s performance in a supreme effort for his people can never be forgotten. To the last, the homeland supported him with all its strength in an effort entailing the heaviest sacrifices. The unique performance of the front and homeland will find its final recognition in a later, just judgment of history. The enemy, too, will not deny his respect for the achievements and sacrifices of German soldiers on land, at sea, and in the air.”


1. Max Hastings, “Their Wehrmacht Was Better Than Our Army,” The Washington Post, May 5, 1985 ( ). In the popular weekly American television show “Combat!” (1962 to 1967), a small unit of US soldiers deployed in France in 1944 routinely and easily killed larger groups of unimaginative German troops. In every single episode of the popular US television sitcom “Hogan’s Heroes” (1965-1971), World War II Germans, and especially German military personnel, were portrayed as timid, easily fooled and cowardly, while the Allied soldiers, especially Americans, were always smart, resourceful and creative.

2. Churchill radio address of June 22, 1941. Quoted in: Winston Churchill, The Second World War, volume 3/ “The Grand Alliance” (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1950), p. 371.

3. This assessment of Trevor N. Dupuy first appeared in his book A Genius for War: The German Army and the General Staff, 1807-1945 (1977), pp. 253-254. An updated summary of his work on the subject is in: Trevor N. Dupuy, David L. Bongard and R. C. Anderson, Jr., Hitler’s Last Gamble (1994), Appendix H (pages 498-501). This quotation of Dupuy is given in: Max Hastings, Overlord: D-Day and the Battle for Normandy (New York: 1984), pp. 184, 326 (n. 30); John Mosier, Deathride: Hitler vs. Stalin, 1941- 1945 (Simon & Schuster, 2010), pp. 443-444 (note 48);

4. Max Boot, War Made New (New York: 2006), p. 462. See also pp. 238, 553.

5. Ben H. Shepherd, Hitler’s Soldiers: The German Army in the Third Reich (Yale University Press, 2016), pp. 524, 87, 396, 525.

6. Ben H. Shepherd, Hitler’s Soldiers (2016), pp. 87, xi.

7. Ben H. Shepherd, Hitler’s Soldiers (2016), pp. 87, 437.

8. Ben H. Shepherd, Hitler’s Soldiers (2016), pp. 533, xiii.

9. Max Hastings, Overlord: D-Day and the Battle for Normandy (New York: 1984), p. 24, 315-316.

10. M. Hastings, Overlord (1984), p. 24; M. Hastings, “Their Wehrmacht Was Better Than Our Army,” The Washington Post, May 5, 1985.

11. M. Hastings, “Their Wehrmacht Was Better Than Our Army,” The Washington Post, May 5, 1985.

12. Winston Churchill, The Second World War, volume 1/“The Gathering Storm” (Boston: 1948), pp. 582-583.

13. Max Hastings, Inferno: The World at War, 1939-1945 (NewYork: 2012 ), pp. 512, 520.

14. M. Hastings, Inferno (2012), p. 312. Source cited: Eugenio Conti, Few Returned: 28 Days on the Russian Front, Winter 1942-1945 (1997), p. 138.

15. M. Hastings, Inferno (2012), p. 572.

16. M. Hastings, Inferno (2012), p. 594.

17. M. Hastings, Inferno, pp. 586-587. Source cited: Milovan Djilas, Wartime (1980), p. 446.

18. B. H. Liddel Hart, History of the Second World War (New York: 1971), pp. 257, 486, 487, 710; Ben H. Shepherd, Hitler’s Soldiers (2016), pp. 245, 328-329; M. Hastings, Inferno (2012), pp. 315, 351, 369.

19. Final German OKW armed forces communique, May 9, 1945.
( )


57 thoughts to “German Soldiers of World War II: Why They Were the Best, and Why They Still Lost”

  1. (ADMIN: Found in Spam but approved for publication)

    The reasons why Germany lost were not the above.Firstly with the Enigma transcripts Britain knew what the Germans were doing , where troop movements, shipping nearly everything Hitler, the German navy, army and airforce were doing.Without the Ultra transcipts Churchill would have lost early in the War he would have been removed as Prime Minister for incompetence. Secondly Hitler did not want to invade Britain he wanted Britain to survive and admired the British Empire, he just wanted territories back that were taken from Germany in WW1 that were in Africa.He even suggested he would have wished to help Britain defend Singapore from invasion with German troops.Thirdly he under estimated the number of troops that Stalin had at his disposal, he stated that had he known before hand the size of the Russian forces he would not have invaded Russia.
    The Book Burners have removed David Irvings videos from Youtube but mant can still be found here.

    Mr Irvings books including the definitive Hitlers War and Churchills War can be downloaded in pdf format
    for free from his website. He had to become his own publisher as the book burners refused to print his books.
    He does offer hard back books that can be purchased on his site, I recommend them having bought them myself.

    1. Hitler said had he known of the size of the Soviet forces he wouldn’t have invaded. But the Soviets also had access to the Enigma transcripts, which obviously he wasn’t aware of. Had this not been the case then Barbarossa may very well succeeded.

  2. No doubt, the Germans were great soldiers. It was only the American war machine which delivered all the rest of the Allies from perdition. Although propagandized (an indispensable tool of any war machine), the people of the United States were indeed weighty participants. Unfortunately, the lies have had to be maintained for the sedation of the people from revolt, as is evident by the incessant Hitler-bashing on the “History” Channel. Thankfully, historians like David Irving and Alexander Solzenitzin have been heard!

  3. This is an interesting article. Many stories have been generated by “man’s greatest endeavors”, according to Patton.

    I believe that there has never been an objective history written by any person. They all retain and display biases, while having their own very particular purpose for writing to make a point. Their point! Many expert authors have their opinions and guesses about what happened in wars where they never engaged in fighting. Good for them. They get paid for it.

    Moreover, the expert authors who WERE military men would have a vested interest in building up the military prowess of an enemy after defeating them. There would be very little glory in defeating an inferior military. So they brag on the defeated enemy!! 🙂

    I don’t enjoy guessing about WWII, but here is an alternative to the depiction offered in the article posted today. The US fighting men were mistakenly written off as inferior….. and winning was accomplishe by sheer numbers. That is SO wrong. Even little Audie Murphy sadly killed hundreds of his kin in Europe by himself!

    Audie Murphy is just one example of a vailiant US hero in WWII I will use to make MY GUESS that US soldiers were the best in that war… in a large part because they had to use more guns from the age of just 5 years, in order to feed their families during the depression era in the US. They were expert marksmen and stealthy LONE hunters even BEFORE the war!

    A friend who fought in the Pacific said he shot wild game from an early age in East Texas, but the Japs were such bad shots because they never used guns before entering the war, as weapons were banned in Japan. He credited the big difference in shooting skills as the main reason for his making it back to his Texas home. That brave tough young man entered the US Marine Corps at age 17. Being the youngest of 12 children, his mom signed for him and lied about his age. No ID required in those days.

    Audie Murphy was one of the most decorated US combat soldiers of World War II.

    Murphy received – EVERY – military combat award for valor available from the U.S. Army, as well as French and Belgian awards for heroism.

    He first saw action in the 1943 Allied invasion of Sicily. In 1944 he participated in the Battle of Anzio, the liberation of Rome, and the invasion of southern France. Murphy fought at Montélimar and led his men on a successful assault in northeastern France in October of that year.

    Murphy received the Medal of Honor for valor that he demonstrated at the age of 19 for single-handedly – ALONE – holding off an entire company of German soldiers for more than an hour at the Colmar Pocket in France in January 1945, killing dozens of the enemy using the exellently desidned – PRECISION – weapons, bravery and expertise. He then lead a successful counter-attack while WOUNDED and OUT of ammunition!!

    Murphy was born into a large family of sharecroppers in east Texas. His father abandoned them, and his mother died when he was a teenager. Murphy left school in fifth grade to pick cotton and find other work to help support his family. He used his skill with a rifle to kill rabbits, squirrels and javelina hogs to help feed the remaining family.

    Murphy wanted to fight so badly that after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, Murphy’s older sister helped him to falsify documentation about his birth-date in order to meet the minimum-age requirement for enlisting in the military.

    –More Initiative:
    After the 5feet-5inch tall Murphy was turned down for being underweight by the Army, Navy and the Marine Corps, he eventually was able to enlist in the Army.

    Murphy died in a plane crash in Virginia in 1971, which was shortly before his 46th birthday.

    There were many like Murphy, but with just a couple of fewer medals. He is one of the most famous because he survived ‘Hell And came Back’ home.(“To Hell And Back” is the movie where he portrayed himself.)

    I have similar stories from my many former friends from East Texas hill country to Arkansas, Tennessee and Virginia to Massachusetts…. and more. They all passed years ago.

    1. Carlos Hathcock, a famous Marine sniper in Vietnam, wrote a book called “One Shot, One Kill”.
      He grew up the same way, in the Ozark Mountains, where his father allotted him only four or five .22 cartridges for his single shot rifle, in order to “feed the family”.
      I, myself, have been shooting since about age 5, as everybody in my family was taught.

    2. Oh, well Pat. As your comment så clearly shows, we put our heart into something we want to believe, and then we create our truth around it.
      If the american soldier was as outstanding during WW2 as you state, something drastic happened with them between then and when I participated in military winter exercises with them in 1982. They were a loud bunch, and not impressive by any means.
      The Germans was allowed to participate that year, which was a rather big event, as it was the first time since the war. They were very professional, but I will not speculate too much on their capacity, as their participation was very limited.
      As opposed to you, I find the facts in this rather interesting piece believable.

      1. BT –

        You wrote:
        “…we put our heart into something we want to believe, and then we create our truth around it.”

        That may be correct for you, but not for me.

        I write:
        “…I put my heart into something I want to prove, and then I use facts to support it.”

        “YUGE” difference!!

        New inventions are the results.

        Because I use facts… your “we” includes you and NOT me!! 🙂

  4. My father told his four sons that “the Germans, on the whole, were the best soldiers of all, bar none.” The Panzer Corps and Waffen SS, especially.

    At wars end he was 14th Armor, 94th cavalry recon fighting with the 125th AEB. He was proud of that and said they were as brave and disciplined as any German combat troops.
    A sentiment which several German field officers themselves agreed with and even said as much, for the record.

    He told his four boys many things about the war, especially the war’s end. The entering of the stalags, oflags, etc. The psyche shattering plight of the civilian refugees, especially.
    I can still see his green eyes shining with that sad dampness.
    He ultimately drank himself to death like so many combat soldiers did, and still do.
    Being the child of a combat soldier means you also share their pain..

    He was the reason I never had to unlearn the holocost nonsense along with the German soldiers as monsters baloney. Because of him I never believed it to begin with.
    I remember when the big holohoax push began in the 60’s and 70’s how when i asked him what he though about it he simply said – “those dirty dogs”
    Nuff said..

    1. Homer –

      Video Shows Iranians Removing Limpet Mine from Tanker, CENTCOM Says:

      A short video released late Thursday night by U.S. Central Command shows the crew of an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps patrol boat removing an unexploded limpet mine from a tanker that sustained damage in a suspected attack earlier in the day, officials said.

      The M/T Kokuka Courageous, a Panama-flagged oil tanker, was one of two civilian vessels targeted near the Strait of Hormuz in the incident; the other was the MT Front Altair, a Marshall Islands-flagged tanker. U.S. Navy assets including the guided-missile destroyer Bainbridge responded, rescuing 21 merchant mariners. Though the events that left the Front Altair burning and the Kokuka with hull damage were not immediately clear early in the day, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo hours later blamed the “unprovoked attacks” on Iran, saying they were the latest in a series of “provocative actions” by the rogue state.

  5. WWII should be referred to as “the lynching of Germany and Japan by the rest of the world.” The above article, which tells of how the Germans were severely outnumbered and outgunned, sounds eerily reminiscent of what happened to the Confederate Army during the middle19th century when it was fighting to repel the onslaught of Lincoln’s mercenary hordes, which is known euphemistically as the “civil war.” German immigrants played a key and perhaps even a decisive role in the ultimate victory of Lincoln’s blue-uniformed army btw. It’s ironic when you think about it – that Lincoln’s unconstitutional war against the South was aided so greatly by the participation of deluded German immigrants who had enlisted into the Yankee cause out of a misguided belief that they were fighting to end the peculiar institution of slavery when if fact they were merely setting the stage for an expansion of federal power that would eventually culminate in the destruction of Germany some 80 to 85 years later. There were German soldiers on both sides of “civil war.” The Germans were fiercest of fighters but unfortunately the north had more of them. Quetion: Why did the USA endeavor to wage war against Germany during the first “go round” (WWI) sans the excuse of having a boogey man like Hitler to serve as a bogus justification ? “Look mom – no Hitler !!” We just love to hate those stinkin’ krauts !! – apparently – and we don’t seem to really give a damn if they were “our kind of guys” during the so-called “civil war.”

    1. Save –

      You mentioned:
      “…Lincoln’s unconstitutional war against the South…”

      As was planned by bankers… THAT “war” would never have happened WITHOUT the constitution!

      Lincoln never referred to the military action as a “war” and always referred to it as “the rebellion” which gave him the constitutional authority to abandon Habeas Corpus and use military forces to put down “the rebellion” by using any force available.

      Using “the rebellion” to support his military actions gave Lincoln GREAT POWERS unforeseen by most when the constitution was adopted, BUT over the objections of a few stalwarts who refused to sign it. Patrick was most belligerent & outspoken. (He “smelt a rat!”)

      The military action in quelling “the rebellion” brought the US under martial law proper still in force today.

      There is more than adequate case law to support those actions. Case law is also constitutional.

      SCOTUS rulings have noted it. Here is just one:
      EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)
      71 U.S. 2 (Wall.)
      December Term, 1866
      [71 U.S. 2, 4] THIS case came before the court upon a certificate of division from the judges of the Circuit Court for Indiana, on a petition for discharge from unlawful imprisonment.

      (Chief Justice – Samuel Chase – excerpts):

      There are under the Constitution three kinds of military jurisdiction:
      1- one to be exercised both in peace and war;
      2- another to be exercised in time of foreign war without the boundaries of the United States, or in time of rebellion and civil war within states or districts occupied by rebels treated [71 U.S. 2, 142] as belligerents;
      3- and a third to be exercised in time of invasion or insurrection within the limits of the United States, or during rebellion within the limits of states maintaining adhesion to the National Government, when the public danger requires its exercise.

      –The first of these may be called jurisdiction under MILITARY LAW, and is found in acts of Congress prescribing rules and articles of war, or otherwise providing for the government of the national forces;
      –the second may be distinguished as MILITARY GOVERNMENT, superseding, as far as may be deemed expedient, the local law, and exercised by the military commander under the direction of the President, with the express or implied sanction of Congress;
      –while the third may be denominated MARTIAL LAW PROPER, and is called into action by Congress, or temporarily, when the action of Congress cannot be invited, and in the case of justifying or excusing peril, by the President, in times of insurrection or invasion, or of civil or foreign war, within districts or localities where ordinary law no longer adequately secures public safety and private rights.

      We think that the power of Congress, in such times and in such localities, to authorize trials for crimes against the security and safety of the national forces, may be derived from its constitutional authority to raise and support armies and to declare war, if not from its constitutional authority to provide for governing the national forces.

      We have no apprehension that this power, under our American system of government, in which all official authority is derived from the people, and exercised under direct responsibility to the people, is more likely to be abused than the power to regulate commerce, or the power to borrow money. And we are unwilling to give our assent by silence to expressions of opinion which seem to us calculated, though not intended, to cripple the constitutional powers of the government, and to augment the public dangers in times of invasion and rebellion.

      Martial Law does not have to be DECLARED or written publicly or called ‘Martial Law’ to be in effect.

      SCOTUS Chief Justice Chase also wrote in this case:
      When we say a region or country is “under martial law,” we mean to say that the military is in control of the area, that it acts as the police, as the COURTS, as the legislature.
      The degree of control might vary – a nation may have a civilian legislature but have the COURTS ADMINISTERED by the military.
      Or the legislature and courts may operate under civilian control with a military ruler. In each case, martial law is in effect, even if it is not called “martial law.”

      Mr. Justice WAYNE, Mr. Justice SWAYNE, and Mr. Justice MILLER concur with me in these views.

      You may want to read what General Birkhimer wrote in 1892. He was former Judge Advocate General in US.
      His book stands as a complete legal masterpiece on Martial Law and Military Rule of conquered people’s lands. It is even used by SCOTUS and UCMJ proceedings.

      For brevity here, Judge Advocate General Birkhimer noted in his book…page vii Preface….

      In *1894* in Chicago, long after the “war” …. the principle of martial law in the US remained intact even after the Civil War:

      “The Governor of Illinois at the time would not call for the national troops, although inter-state commerce and the carrying of United States mails through that city were effectually blocked by lawless violence, leading to loss of life and destruction of property. The President ordered United States troops to the scene.
      “The special United States attorney urged that martial law formally be declared; and although this was not done, the omission to do so was not because apparently of a belief that this would he illegal, nor did it change the state of facts, which was one of the military dominating ALL other authorities.
      “The Supreme Court of the United States sustained these energetic measures (Martial Law) in the amplest manner.”

      Customs, regulations, rules and laws mentioned in it ARE still applied in laws today:

      1. PAT
        June 14, 2019 at 12:43 pm
        Save –

        Very clever. All you have to do now is prove that peaceful secession under the plain language of the 10th Amendment is “insurrection”. It was Lincoln who caused the war by calling for 75,000 volunteers. I see nothing in the Constitution that would support this. To Northern liberals, words never mean what they say, and promises never need be kept. They are like pie crusts — made to be broken.
        Let’s see; where have we heard that before?

  6. Those poor deluded newly-arrived German soldiers in Blue were fighting for the cause of Hamiltonian Supremacism without even realizing it, and yet in their own minds they were fighting to free the downtrodden slaves !! Imagine that !! The German immigrants were so decidedly against the enslavement of their dark-skinned fellow human beings that they were willing to fight to the death in an effort to end the peculiar institution of slavery. But that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in light of the standard prevailing “meme” regarding Germans and Germany. Just about everybody who watches television “news” can tell you that those stinkin’ kraut b*stards are nothing but a bunch of evil racists and “nazis” ! They even fought for Hitler for crying out loud – the very same Hitler who went down in history as “the most evil man who ever lived.” Let’s not forget that Hitler enjoyed overwhelming popular support in Germany. Hitler enjoyed overwhelming support among the German “volk” minus the communist constituency, and yet it turns out that the German immigrants who came to the USA back in the 19th century to fight against the “evil racist Southerners” were actually genetic ancestors or at least they were of the same genetic stock as the future German “wehrmacht” of the 20th century. Nazis in Blue uniforms, fighting to free the slaves and to get a paycheck !! Simply and utterly amazing !! I have no doubt that ye geniuses will be able to explain this apparent paradox.

  7. Hermann Goering said this at the Nuremberg trials, paraphrasing ; the people don’t war, but it is easy for the governments to get them to go to war, just tell them they are under attack and under threat from some outside force, and it is easy to get them to go to war.

    The actual quote can be found by googling Goerings quote about getting the common people to go to war.

  8. Children growing up in Germany after WW1 were doing it tough while the “Fatherland” was bled to death through the treason of Versailles. A close friend told me once when he being a kid, saw the first German fighter jet of the German Luftwaffe roaring through the skies above him he was struck by awe and “forbidden” German patriotism at the same time with tears in his eyes. A moment he never would forget in his life and also drove him to enlist – under age and with false papers later on.
    Another friend also left his parents home early with the age of 15 and false papers towards the final stages of the war, ending up in the Waffen SS and parachuting (after a short training) behind enemy lines into the eastern and retreating front coming down with a broken tail bone that was “dislocated” by his superior in an Junker before his first jump into Battle. Most of his comrades died as they already were stabbed to death or cut into pieces before they even landed on the blood soaked Eastern soil. He miraculously survived and later “earned” some military decorations, before being captured by Russian forces and send to a Siberian work camp for over 2 years before he turned 18 burying his dead German comrades in frozen Siberian ground.
    Germans were not only starved and mocked while their country was robbed blind before the war by the French and the usual British subjects. Germany and Germans had no future of their own unless in submission to the same Vampires that were choking them, their life and their country without mercy or empathy.
    The French foreign legion (after the war) had their own German battalion fighting in Indochina. Many of these came from the eastern front and had their Waffen SS underarm blood group tattoos, smuggled through Switzerland and France into Asia.

    1. My uncle served in the Waffen SS in the last 6 months of the war, then 3 years in France after the war as a brutalized prisoner. He recovered after his release and played European handball. Last year I saw my other uncle for the first time in 52 years. I didn’t know my two uncles knew each other. One was my fathers brother and the other my mothers sisters husband. My uncle told me Emil (now passed) would visit occasionally with his former comrades and they all had a good time. I met uncle Emil and aunt Hilla several times. They were always close to our family, although separated by the ocean after my parents came to the USA.

  9. Two thumbs up! I enjoyed reading every word. Hopefully Germany and Europe will recover its vigor because things don’t look good right now.

    1. @ Carlos Porter

      He wrote it last year. In February 2018.

      I don’t think the date of the article is at all relevant. Everything Weber says in praise of the competence and indomitable fighting spirit of the average German soldier would apply equally well 10 years from now. He would still hold the same view in 2029 — just as you are likely to hold the same views about the Holocaust or Nuremberg in 2029.

      1. Carlos —

        Is the Wheel out of date because someone first thought about it roughly 3000 years ago? Isn’t the Wheel still with us? 🙂

        June 14, 2019 at 5:46 pm


        The problem is that the IHR received a 7.25 million dollar donation from an heir to the Edison family fortune who lived in Switzerland, which Weber more or less stole (I don’t know the legal details, I assume he gained control of the corporation and paid himself a salary off it), so everybody else quit in disgust, and Weber hasn’t done a stroke ever since! That was about 30 years ago. Anybody who ever worked with the IHR can confirm this.

        He’s had projects lying around unfinished for years that he hasn’t even touched, despite repeated promises, like republication of THE FORCED WAR by David L. Hoggan. Where the hell is it?

        Weber is the Donald Trump of revisionism.

        1. Sure, sure! All you say could be correct, Carlos. And if so, you have a right to feel indignant about Weber’s moral turpitude. But please don’t let the mist of rage steam up your eyeglasses, my friend! 🙂

          What does Weber’s iniquity (in your eyes) got to do with the bravery and competence of the German soldier during WWII? I mean, would you kick up such a fuss if David Irving had written the article? Irving could well have done that. Or Faurisson. Or ANY Germanophile revisionist! You yourself could have written the article, nein? So why get so steamed up if Weber wrote it and is 100% correct in what he is saying?

          You are letting anger interfere with logic.

      3. “…I don’t think the date of the article is at all relevant….”

        After 30 years of complete inactivity! It’s like finding a live dodo. Ha! Ha! Ha!

      4. I have heard similar comments from other revisionists. The article is great, as are many others on the website, but as Carlos says, many have been on the website for decades without getting any attention. That isn’t all Mark Weber’s fault, but the IHR used to have conferences with top historians in the headlines like David Irving and Robert Faurisson and American congressmen like Paul Findley and Paul McCloskey. It was controversial and suffered a bomb attack by the Jews and they successfully kept it out of the public eye except when they wanted to vilify it, but now would be an ideal time for it to make itself be heard.

        It is one of the most informative websites on history on the web, but especially now with the coming of the alt-right, the beginning of a return to nationalism with a sense that something is horribly wrong and many people thirsting for real history and reading article from new websites all over the web, it should be a leading website. I think this website could attract some of the biggest names in the news, many controversial and with luck maybe some less controversial. But I also have no doubt the Jews would do whatever they could to put the IHR out of business. .

  10. they may have been great fighters, and they were certainly ruthless enough..
    skill and bravery, audacity, required, but unconscionable ruthlessness is what really makes the difference too..
    and keeping your head…
    it has been said – “the english fight with guts”, and that’s true enough, while “the french fight with elan”, whatever that is, and “the germans fight with the odds on their side”…
    and as long as they did that they were victorious..
    but when they ventured too far eastward, they made their fatal mistake, the siege of stalingrad compounding it, grossly against the advice of the german generals…
    dictatorships are good for getting things done, it’s true, but the generals have to know when to get rid of this dictator and get another… hitler’s micromanagement of the german forces against his generals’ advice was deadly to the german cause of defeating the bolsheviks…
    in time it became obvious he was sabotaging the effort and having the army slaughtered on purpose on the eastern front…
    if the attempt on his life had been successful, the generals, including rommel, might have been able to save the day for the wehrmacht..
    hitler was fake news from the beginning, fake ww1 medal, somebody else wrote his book, gay, an agent of the international bankers, who installed him in power to rearm germany in the 30s, and they held their meeting all through the war, getting safe passage to their conferences through the combat zones, switzerland was never attacked…
    they had the bretton woods IMF world bank agreement all figured out before ww2 was even over…
    both world wars were cooked up by the zionists at their global conferences, beginning in the late 1880s, where switzerland was designated neutral… all rothschild big-time warmongering stuff, the usual…

    1. There you go again, Barkingdeer, showing how incorrigible you can be by not qualifying your views to at least consider how the German military codes being compromised affected their entire war effort to make Hitler APPEAR to reflect much of what you say about him. But this doesn’t fit with your tidy little view of things, does it?

      Instead of having a huge hair up yer arse for Hitler, why don’t you entertain the idea that you’re completely off base with this, hmmm?

  11. From the file of things I wish I didn’t know – the M16 rifle.

    Weapons development reflected the change in the quality of American soldiery that came soon after WWII. This came about during Vietnam where increasingly urbanized, ghetto dwellers were conscripted as cannon fodder.

    Earlier rifles, like the M1 “Garand” of WWII fame and its replacement, the M14, were relatively large heavy weapons urban couch potatoes found difficult to lug around on their way to the whorehouse. Urban life did not produce the typical robust physical specimens of earlier conscripted farm boys who had been slinging bales of hay and performing heavy farm chores their entire lives. Many if not most of these inner-city denizens had never seen a firearm, let alone fired one, yet these ghetto dwellers were to be trained marksmen in a few weeks. Anyone growing up with firearms knows that, with rare exception, this is an impossible task.

    The answer was the M16, a lightweight weapon for lightweight troops. “Matty Mattel M16,” was a derogatory reference to Mattel toys made by seasoned combat veterans, as the lightweight M16 seemed more a toy than serious combat weapon. The bolt was so lightweight it required a “charging handle” to assist driving the bolt home. Anyone who has accidentally bent or broken the spindly M16 charging handle in the heat of the moment, fully understands just one design flaw of this weapon. No one ever accidentally bent anything on an M1, M14 or AK47.

    What’s more, the M16 had a serious tendency to jam, especially in wet/muddy/dusty environments, like those never found in combat. Front-line troops in Vietnam often tossed their M16 in favor of the Soviet AK47, a far more robust and reliable combat weapon, not to mention its better ballistics. The idea of the AR15, the semi-auto civil version of the M16, as an “assault rifle” (a nebulous term at best) is ludicrous. The term as used by the media, is nothing more than pure Jewish wordsmithing; mere hyperbole designed to get a quick, predictable, gut reaction from the unthinking gullible goy herds.

    More to the point however was the inner city conscript of that era that could not be trained to hit the broad side of a barn they had never seen in the first place. The answer was to supply the troops with a lightweight, full-auto weapon enabling one to “spray and pray.” Thus, unlike the M14 with its “drop in selector lever,” The M16 had full auto capability built in from the factory. What’s more, the diminutive 223 round, whose bullet was just a hair larger than the 22, was very light weight, allowing soldiers to carry the large ammo supply required to feed “spray and pray” tactics.

    The Marine Corps long eschewed the wasteful aspect of full-auto fire. The Corps has always maintained a one-shot-one-kill philosophy and depended on large, heavy caliber rifles to deliver a fatal punch at long range. Full-auto “selector levers” for the M14 were only issued to certain people like platoon leaders. The M16 was a far cry from the earlier Springfield .30-06 and later M1 and M14 (7.62mm); note the M16 round is 5.56mm. The size difference provides the punch line.

    But it’s the military and the military operates on orders not to be questioned, even stupid ones, so the Marine Corps went along with the M16 program. While an arguably lousy combat weapon, the lightweight M16 was just the thing for boot camp trainees, as now holding one’s rifle out front “with arms fully extended” as punishment, was now considerably easier on the “boot.”

    Before someone jumps to defend the military’s choice of the M16, (as invariably someone does), before I hear once again the tired old saw of just how great the M16 really is as a combat weapon and how all the bugs have been worked out (I’ve heard it all before), one would do well to examine what other countries such as Russia and the European Union countries use for military rifles. Take a look at the Belgian FN FAL and SCAR-H or the Heckler & Koch G3. Even more tellingly, look at the rifles and calibers used by the IDF. Obviously, many of these country’s military equipment decisions are not made by paid political clowns that never served in the military.

    The M16, just one more cheap, shoddy piece of military equipment foisted off on the gullible goyim by Jewish military contractors; a practice that has been going on since the Civil War with only brief respite for wars Jews felt really needed to be won.

    Then there is the paltry, 9mm Beretta sidearm that replaced the highly effective Colt 45. Yet another story of political failure in a long list of failed government policies that cost many an American life. The government recently turned back the clock with a return to WWII style uniforms. One can bet there won’t be a return to that era’s more effective light weaponry.

  12. HAWK
    you knew that was coming..
    consider the possibility your convictions on this subject exist primarily as prejudicial loyalty to someone you know personally, who impressed you with his tales early on… if so, you’re on a par with the holohoaxers…
    i have studied this subject extensively, probably forgotten a lot more than anybody on this blog ever knew about it… i wonder how many books you’ve read bout the rise and fall of the third reich, because unless you’ve made an effort to dig stuff up it means you’re repeating the official narrative.. we should all know by now that’s usually wrong…

    1. And don’t forget VERRATENE VERRÄTER by Hans Meiser. It doesn’t help when half your generals and ministers are in contact with the British, telling them everything. Canaris was just the tip of the iceberg.

    2. Bark
      Loyalty, yes. Devotedly. Prejudicial, no. Straight from the horses mouth, or as near as that’s possible

      1. Bark
        Propose reading these books if you will, but just know that if they were to represent a complete and accurate portrayal in presenting the truth of this, that, and the other they wouldn’t make it to the printing stage of their various publishing houses. You’ll never put ALL the pieces of this story together from what is gleaned through words that have seen the light of day and should be taken with a grain of salt.

        1. @ Brownhawk the Omniscient

          So how come you know so much as to dismiss as false every other source of knowledge, including every single word written in every single book? What, may I ask, is the source of YOUR wisdom? Intuition? Do you have a hotline to the Great Big Chief in the Sky?

          — Polite Inquirer (PI)

    1. The first rule of war is there are no rules. There used to be rules of war. Even honor, fair play and justice. But not anymore.
      Not in today’s miscreant, cretin and goblin filled world..

      1. “But not anymore.”….

        Certainly not…. with heavily armed drones controlled from 5,000 miles away with joy sticks & buttons by wimps in a trailer!!

      2. PI
        How do you conclude that I’ve DISMISSED all of what you say I have, when I make it clear that such sources can’t HELP but be incomplete?

        As for my sources, if I told you I’d have to kill you… the old saying goes 💀

    2. Barkingdeer
      June 15, 2019 at 12:01 am

      “Remember Grasshoppers .
      The First Rule of War is TREACHERY….”

      No …. The First Rule of War is DECEPTION.

      “Always mystify, mislead, and surprise the enemy, if possible; and when you strike and overcome him, never let up in the pursuit so long as your men have strength to follow; for an army routed, if hotly pursued, becomes panic-stricken, and can then be destroyed by half their number. The other rule is, never fight against heavy odds, if by any possible maneuvering you can hurl your own force on only a part, and that the weakest part, of your enemy and crush it. Such tactics will win every time, and a small army may thus destroy a large one in detail, and repeated victory will make it invincible.” ~ Gen. Stonewall Jackson, CSA.

  13. The most important rule in warfare imo is that you simply must know who your friends are, and that you simply MUST know who your enemy is. Any amount of confusion in this area can only result in the untimely demise of your cause and your nation. If you don’t know who your friends are, how are you going to get a “bead” on the identity of your enemy, who is expending all of his time and energy in an effort to provoke a bloody fight between you and your friends ? While you and your friends are engaged in a bloody struggle to the death, thanks in no small measure to the successful deployment of enemy disinformation, the enemy is then going to lounge around on the sidelines, laughing and enjoying the show while you and your friends are busy killing each other. This is essentially how modern warfare works. It is vitally imperative that a nation must never allow itself to fall into this trap by making the fatal and tragic mistake of treating its friends as enemies and vice versa.

    1. STG
      In seguing from a previous post of yours, treachery is the “handmaiden” of deception, and Martin Bormann may very well have been the most treacherous handmaiden of all.
      Hitler thought he had a friend that may have been the most instrumental and history-altering enemy ever

  14. no-doubt the books mentioned above don’t have the whole story either, but, if they’re accurate, they give the reader a much better understanding of how these war things work…
    it’s not possible war would continue as the methodology, if the public knew the whole story of how those events are generally contrived and orchestrated by the same small group of globalists, who always play both sides off against each other from the middle…
    that much right there is a big step toward the enlightenment…
    considering the expense and effort that’s put into making war as a way of doing things a reality in the world, when most people would rather not, compared to how little effort is spent preventing it, obviously something’s wrong…
    war means different things to different people…
    in the case of ww2, i think both hitler and stalin used it to kill off large portions of their domestic populations on purpose, because those people, young men, were enemies of the zionistas…

    June 14, 2019 at 11:11 pm

    You must be seeing things. I have said nothing about the article, one way or the other. It is a good article.
    I merely asked, Weber wrote this? How many decades ago? After 30 years of incomplete inactivity, it’s like finding a live dodo.

    1. OK, I accept that. But the impression I got from the way you expressed yourself was that you were angry about something, complaining about something — as indeed you were — so I concluded that you were finding fault with the article because you felt it was out of date. “How many decades ago was this written?” you asked.

      How was I to know that you were referring to Weber resting on his laurels for decades and doing nothing constructive?

      The art of good writing is clarity. Unless you say what is on your mind, how is your reader to know what you are getting at? You are usually clear. On this occasion you were not.

      1. Well, as John Wayne said in one of his films:

        “I’m only responsible for what I say, not for what you understand”.

        Weber promised me years ago that he would republish David L. Hoggan’s THE FORCED WAR in just a few months, but he never did anything. He has the rights, so nobody else can publish it, and he’s sitting on it.

        That’s the single best book on the causes of WWII, and Weber is sitting on it. Oh, well, who needs a little thing like a book?

        June 16, 2019 at 3:40 am
        “…How was I to know…”

        A question like that is not really a question, it’s a poker opening.

    June 16, 2019 at 1:30 pm

    I agree with you that Weber writes extremely well when he feels like doing anything at all; I agree that the article is very good. But his writing is always very safe, a bit conservative, a bit dull.

    There is little or no chance that some Jewish organization is going to seize on something he says and sue him and take some of his 7.25 million dollars away to compensate them for their “suffering”. I believe that is his deepest fear.

    At the same, those same 7.25 million dollars which he is so eager to protect could also be used to defend himself, which the person making the bequest would no doubt have preferred — rather than 30 years of nothing.

    Thus, Weber is a betrayer on multiple levels: the wishes of the legator are considered to count for absolutely nothing.

    I saw Weber on TV in the early or mid-90s, on the Montel William Show, with a few other people, and I distinctly recall him saying “We don’t say the Holocaust didn’t happen. Nobody says that.” I think he also said “We don’t deny the Holocaust”. (Weber didn’t ask the other revisionist guests whether they agreed with him; as far as one could tell, he simply spoke for them without their permission).

    Both Robert Faurisson and myself and many other people have repeatedly stated that if words have any meaning, then that is precisely what we DO say — that the gas chambers never existed, and that the so-called “Holocaust” is a pack of lies.

  17. “…I saw Weber on TV in the early or mid-90s, on the Montel William Show, with a few other people…”

    Since I was living in Belgium, it was not really TV, but a video cassette which I purchased from Historical Review Press in Brighton. There were a couple of these shows, in which the participants included David Cole and Bradley Smith. I don’t know which show this was.

  18. When he said “Oh, we don’t say the Holocaust didn’t happen, nobody says that”, Weber looked really nervous, and made a number of nervous hand movements like he was shooing away a small animal.
    Weber is not a good liar.

  19. I suppose if you know that you are going to be wiped out, you will be a better soldier than those that does not face this position. At least from the older boys upward this was a known fact. The lessons of the WWI defeat was still lingering in their minds. Then one must remember that the German soldier had more combat experience behind them, and that the American soldier (a large part with a German heritage!) was tricked into this war. The American soldier entered the theatre of war when Germany already was on the point of being finished off.

    The old South African Defense Force knew of the German soldiers tactics of independent decision making, when a higher rank fell out. A whole article was written on this in the Paratus Magazine, the old SADF magazine. I read that article. This was confirmed to me by a colonel acquaintance. General Roland de Vries, when still a colonel and commander of 61 Mech (..anised battallion – unit which participated in the final conventional conflict in the Angolan Tumpo Triangle, falsely known as the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale), knew General von Mellenthin, who emigrated to South Africa and founded the Luxavia Airways. Here von Mellethin appears with Roland de Vries on the Afrikaans version of his Masters Thesis “Mobile Warfare” (basically Blitzkrieg in a African context). This as just a bit of trivia.

    For Hitler not invading the Soviet Union – did he have a choice? I have read original old German newspapers reports (they have been digitalised but I did not save the link) on how the Soviet military apparatus had been analised and found to be a terrible threat to world peace. Germany was aware of the build up of Societ divisions on its eastern border. For me I saw the parallels to our own situation in South Africa – the build up of communist forces in Angola and our pre-emptive strikes. If we had done nothing, we would have been wiped out. One must have been in the same situation in order to be able to appreciate it.

    1. “…For Hitler not invading the Soviet Union – did he have a choice?…”

      No, he did not have a choice. See:

      EISBRECHER and DER TAG M by Victor Suvorov, translated as ICEBREAKER and DAY M or THE USUAL CULPRITS.

      If Hitler had not forestalled an obviously impending Soviet attack by his invasion of June 22, 1941, the Soviets would have attacked Western Europe by July 7, 1941 at the latest, almost certainly overrunning most of the continent in 3 weeks.

      The original Soviet documents have all been found and the evidence of Soviet deployment in 1941 is very clear.
      Back in a moment.

  20. What makes a soldier? They were b etter because they were fighting pro aris et focis. They were reborn after the cruel , jewish occupation of Weimar. They could love Vaterland and VOlk without the oppression and persecution we allow the same today . In half year they were before Moscow . Betrayal and sabotage ended the war in the east the same year it began. But misinformation and delusion would continue the Barbarosa Offensiv.
    Strategy should ahave changed and Barbarossa abandoned. Instead they lay indecisive before Stalingrad from August ,42 to Septemper , 43. Also results of betrayal, sabotage and central command .

    But also important the Wehrmacht , Germany and the CHristian culture lost because of the disaffection with the supreme Fuehrer and the German General Staff. He (Hitler) would trust Heinz Guderian to the end and then relieve him. His advice was unacceptable.
    It is the greatest tragedy since General Lee surrendered .
    The German soldier possessed the necessary qualities he would inherit . Arguably the most disciplined inhistory was the Bristish Victorian Army . But the Wehrmacht was built as this article alludes from an individual embodying all of the qualities of the whole. Stalingrad as early as September a battalion was decimated to 160 soldiers; a lieutenant was command the Feldwebel or Gefreiten were platoon and company commanders. They fought overwhelming and continuous fighting for several months.
    There were the typical Schergen and myrmidons but more so in American army . Kadaver discipline was held in contempt and even in the end they realized they fought with Verzweiflungsmut. Many German women would commit Freitod before being desecrated by soulless American or Russian mercenaries .

    Had der Fuehrer not been so misinformed and lost all cooperation and respect from the Offizier Korp , the trust may have built unified answer to the adamant Yalta and Casblanca with their jewish demanded unconditional surrender , another reason to prolong the German fanatic resistance. COnsider what happened after the war after capitulation. WHo were the barbarians and murderers?

    People with identity , purpose, and good leadership with a Spirit of Christ can only be beaten by desertion, betrayal and treachery. Encouraged through their own delusions.

  21. PAT
    June 14, 2019 at 12:43 pm
    Save –

    I consider it understood by all sensible people that the war was over secession; not slavery. Lincoln repeatedly stressed this. In 1776, slavery was legal in all 13 colonies, while sodomy was punishable by death. Now it is the other way around, so the whole discussion of constitutionality is nonsensical.

    But in any case, if the Yankees didn’t like slavery (which was absolutely legal under the Constitution of the United States, regulated only by state law), there was a very simple remedy awaiting them, a solution actually suggested by various abolitionists: They should have seceded from the Union themselves, and declared slavery illegal in their half of the country. Ergo, the Fugitive Slave Laws would no longer apply.

    Alternatively, they could have allowed the South to secede, which would, again, mean that the Fugitive Slave Laws need no longer be enforced, and that the Confederates would be stuck with an absolutely indefensible 2,000 mile + border with no modern technology (drones, electric fences, etc.). That would have ended slavery in short order right there. Give it a decade.

Comments are closed.