Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome
Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 4:54 pm
After WWII two basic positions regarding the German (and overall Axis) proficiency developed:
1. One instigated by Hollywood to regard the Germans as plain stupid as the TV series Combat or Hogan´s Heroes or also as several high grossing motion pictures showed to the US public.
2. Historians, on their own, began doing the equation German = Excelence as part of their credo. And by 1960 it was recognized that the Germans developed not only some of the best weapon systems but were also tactical superior to their foes, which evidence was how they dealth with numerical superior forces in many instances. German defeats were attributed to two main reasons: numerical inferiority and Hitler.
Hitler was blamed for everything, on one hand, and German officers were left as the best of XX Century. For instance, Rommel or Guderian. Now, many serious historians had done exhaustive research and discovered that the German Officer Corps was at fault in many instances and that they "helped" Hitler to get Germany defeated. Of course you cannot place a proper critic on, let´s say, Rommel because he was the escense of German dignity because of his involvement in the July Plot. He had to be good to kick the British at Tobuk, get defeated at Alamein by inmense superior numerical british forces and then become the "Desert Fox" only to be executed by the nazis. If some German officer deserves to be "a good guy" then it´s Rommel. Or Guderian who standed against Hitler´s wishes more than once. Serious historians, as House and Glantz, had unvelived that some German "Totems" were not so and that the German Officer Corps screwed things more than once. As a matter of fact it became obvious that were the Russians, not the Germans, the first ones to develop Blitzkrieg concepts but Stalin made sure to execute this ruskies officers before the war.
Having said that it is clear that the Germans were not the equal to Excelence (which is hard to me to accept). But then another tendency has emerged, which is dangerous because tends to deviate a truth in service of national pride.
Ambrose, for example, wrote several well researched books on the European campaign 1943-1945 in which, using particular examples, develops a notion that "the German Excelence" was false. Which it is, but not in the degree of what is believed. Other authors, who had done extensive research too, as Cornelius Ryan, had stablised a quite objective parameters in which the virtues and defects of both contenders are taken in consideration. You see that in the Longest Day or in A Bridge Too Far. But Ambrose´s Band of Brothers or D Day had the tendency of giving the US a special aura the equals to Excelence. And it is obvious: after WWII the military fame of the US arms had gone in discredit when they got a draw against technologically inferior Korean and Chinese in the early fifties, then a disastrous defeat against the Vietnamese and some questionable victories against tiny and puny adversaries as in Grenada or Panamá. In 1991 Irak the stain of kicking a substandard army only to left the enemy alive to produce another quagimare in 2003-present helps a lot to undermine the military pride of the US. The debacle of the Irak and Afganistan wars plus the inhability to win against a bunch of camel drivers and capture Osama after almost ten years of pursuit is such a military disgrace that something is required to balance this not so good image. So, it´s necesarry to turn out the last known total victory of the US in a reference frame for high school kids that watch HBO. Can´t let the evil Germans stole the "Excelence" paradigm from the victorious US... at the end the allies won.
In this paradigm then a US GI is to be regarded as a superior infrantry man if compared to a Waffen SS Panzergrenadier that fought for four years in the East against ten or fifteen times his numbers and endured several freezing winters instead of a single "Bastogne" in a front were the Germans never put their crack units, in the first place. Or a German pilot with hundreds of kills was, likely, not that good as a US pilot with five or none kills. Or a Panzer Ace was just "lucky" or the U Boat Arm not that powerfull as pretended by "German delusionists". Or the Sherman tank had to be regarded as a boldly and cunning (and deliberate) move because of the good production ratio the US industry was capable. Of course there are several weapons that were superior: an industry of the size of the US in a country the size of the US with a scientific and engineering population of european profesionals had to produce, by default, outstanding good weapons as their destroyers, fleet submarines, aircraft carriers and planes as the P 51, the Corsair, the Thunderbolt or rifles as the M1, the Norden Bombsight or the B 17. Also the Atom Bomb. Which no body regards to be faulty or flawed, and the general agreement is that those weapons were superior as the US parachutist, US marines or US rangers can be regarded as very good soldiers and, in cases, the best in their respective theaters when compared to some B or C units their enemies were able to deploy.
Then there is a case to produce evidence that the US was able to place the "best" in every field. That´s why the Nowaki is so important, because a US BBs never demostrated the weight of their power against a peer in combat or why the Sherman has to be regarded, against all evidence, as a better tank when compared to the Tiger or why the Me 262 performance has to be dimished or the German contribution to the US Space Program ignored.
This Revisionist tendency is dangerous because of instead of producing the appropiate learning of the past mistakes it produces a false sense of unvulnerability. Sooner or later the enemies of the Western Free Societies will learn from their defeats and apply that in order to defeat reason, democracy and free society whilst the US will self centered in their own supposed proficiency and get defeated, which already had occured and it´s happening as I write this.
Bottom line, the Germans, not being the equal to Excelence were tactically great and technologically proficient enough to have won in a one vs one basis. And this is important to recon in order to address the reasons of why things happened the way they did.
Best regards,
1. One instigated by Hollywood to regard the Germans as plain stupid as the TV series Combat or Hogan´s Heroes or also as several high grossing motion pictures showed to the US public.
2. Historians, on their own, began doing the equation German = Excelence as part of their credo. And by 1960 it was recognized that the Germans developed not only some of the best weapon systems but were also tactical superior to their foes, which evidence was how they dealth with numerical superior forces in many instances. German defeats were attributed to two main reasons: numerical inferiority and Hitler.
Hitler was blamed for everything, on one hand, and German officers were left as the best of XX Century. For instance, Rommel or Guderian. Now, many serious historians had done exhaustive research and discovered that the German Officer Corps was at fault in many instances and that they "helped" Hitler to get Germany defeated. Of course you cannot place a proper critic on, let´s say, Rommel because he was the escense of German dignity because of his involvement in the July Plot. He had to be good to kick the British at Tobuk, get defeated at Alamein by inmense superior numerical british forces and then become the "Desert Fox" only to be executed by the nazis. If some German officer deserves to be "a good guy" then it´s Rommel. Or Guderian who standed against Hitler´s wishes more than once. Serious historians, as House and Glantz, had unvelived that some German "Totems" were not so and that the German Officer Corps screwed things more than once. As a matter of fact it became obvious that were the Russians, not the Germans, the first ones to develop Blitzkrieg concepts but Stalin made sure to execute this ruskies officers before the war.
Having said that it is clear that the Germans were not the equal to Excelence (which is hard to me to accept). But then another tendency has emerged, which is dangerous because tends to deviate a truth in service of national pride.
Ambrose, for example, wrote several well researched books on the European campaign 1943-1945 in which, using particular examples, develops a notion that "the German Excelence" was false. Which it is, but not in the degree of what is believed. Other authors, who had done extensive research too, as Cornelius Ryan, had stablised a quite objective parameters in which the virtues and defects of both contenders are taken in consideration. You see that in the Longest Day or in A Bridge Too Far. But Ambrose´s Band of Brothers or D Day had the tendency of giving the US a special aura the equals to Excelence. And it is obvious: after WWII the military fame of the US arms had gone in discredit when they got a draw against technologically inferior Korean and Chinese in the early fifties, then a disastrous defeat against the Vietnamese and some questionable victories against tiny and puny adversaries as in Grenada or Panamá. In 1991 Irak the stain of kicking a substandard army only to left the enemy alive to produce another quagimare in 2003-present helps a lot to undermine the military pride of the US. The debacle of the Irak and Afganistan wars plus the inhability to win against a bunch of camel drivers and capture Osama after almost ten years of pursuit is such a military disgrace that something is required to balance this not so good image. So, it´s necesarry to turn out the last known total victory of the US in a reference frame for high school kids that watch HBO. Can´t let the evil Germans stole the "Excelence" paradigm from the victorious US... at the end the allies won.
In this paradigm then a US GI is to be regarded as a superior infrantry man if compared to a Waffen SS Panzergrenadier that fought for four years in the East against ten or fifteen times his numbers and endured several freezing winters instead of a single "Bastogne" in a front were the Germans never put their crack units, in the first place. Or a German pilot with hundreds of kills was, likely, not that good as a US pilot with five or none kills. Or a Panzer Ace was just "lucky" or the U Boat Arm not that powerfull as pretended by "German delusionists". Or the Sherman tank had to be regarded as a boldly and cunning (and deliberate) move because of the good production ratio the US industry was capable. Of course there are several weapons that were superior: an industry of the size of the US in a country the size of the US with a scientific and engineering population of european profesionals had to produce, by default, outstanding good weapons as their destroyers, fleet submarines, aircraft carriers and planes as the P 51, the Corsair, the Thunderbolt or rifles as the M1, the Norden Bombsight or the B 17. Also the Atom Bomb. Which no body regards to be faulty or flawed, and the general agreement is that those weapons were superior as the US parachutist, US marines or US rangers can be regarded as very good soldiers and, in cases, the best in their respective theaters when compared to some B or C units their enemies were able to deploy.
Then there is a case to produce evidence that the US was able to place the "best" in every field. That´s why the Nowaki is so important, because a US BBs never demostrated the weight of their power against a peer in combat or why the Sherman has to be regarded, against all evidence, as a better tank when compared to the Tiger or why the Me 262 performance has to be dimished or the German contribution to the US Space Program ignored.
This Revisionist tendency is dangerous because of instead of producing the appropiate learning of the past mistakes it produces a false sense of unvulnerability. Sooner or later the enemies of the Western Free Societies will learn from their defeats and apply that in order to defeat reason, democracy and free society whilst the US will self centered in their own supposed proficiency and get defeated, which already had occured and it´s happening as I write this.
Bottom line, the Germans, not being the equal to Excelence were tactically great and technologically proficient enough to have won in a one vs one basis. And this is important to recon in order to address the reasons of why things happened the way they did.
Best regards,