can history make you dislike certain groups?
- Thread starter Wounded Melody
- Start date
Recommended Videos
erm, yeah it was. in fact it was the german blitz of poland that caused the French and british to hold off an attacking them instiantly and wate untill almost a year later for germany to open the war on the western front.Dele said:
and another point is that while i said Poland was actualy pretty stong for a 'knife fighting' nation they were totaly outclassed by the Germans tactics and hardware. Poland was set up to fight a WWI style battle with slow moving armys that generaly marched to the front, dug in and and slogged it out with raids and arty strikes. the germans refused to fight this kind of war and used its armor to break through any static defence lines the polish DID manage to put in place, couple that with its Air Forces ability to destroy any re-enforcing units before they could even reach the front and the speed that gound forces riding in tanks and APCs had compaired to an army designed to fight on foot and at most using rail lines, poland was beat soundly before the first shot was fired.
there was just no possable way for Poland who was geared to fight a war using WWI tactics and for the most part weapons, to defeat the germans new hardware and methods. none.
now i wont quibble with you over the use of the word 'blitz'. im a student of tactics in general and even the 'blitz' of France was just a fancy way of saying they used a greater ability to manuver to full advantage. the tactics used in the german blitzes was tactics that have been know since the dawn of war and the first joining of man and horse, the KEY was that their opponants didnt relize the SCALE of the advantages. sure they knew the germans were faster with armor units, but they didnt know how MUCH faster, sure they knew that the german Air force was stronger, but they didnt know how MUCH stronger. THAT is the 'blitz' in a nut shell, the allies thought they were ready to fight the germans, they knew about the new german tactics and abilitys but they werent ready for the 'shock and awe' (to borrow a phrase) of it.
further an argument CAN be made that the germans didnt actualy 'blitz' poland in the same way that they did France the following year, but i would argue that both instances had the same basic effect. neither Poland nor france was ready to face the german tactics or their hardware in either campaign. the german blitz of France came as a big a shock to the French when it happed as the first attacks on poland did too the polish. the attack on France was only different in-so-far as that the germans had the lessons learned in poland to use to improve the tactics they used in France. the attack could be viewed by some as the transition between WWI style combat and WWII style 'blitz' compaignes. i would argue that there was enough NEW tactics and hardware used in the polish battles that it qualified as a true 'blitz' in its own right, if we define blitz to mean the enemy not being able to cope with new tactics of extream manuverability and untested and untryed groupings of hardware in unusual formations. (panzer divisions and bombers groups and such).
the attack on poland marks the shift from mass infantry battles to the much faster mechanized battles. germany had made that shift, poland had not.
this coupled with other changes such as radio communications, and a much MUCH larger roll for the air forces all added up to a basic change in war fighting that poland hadent accomplished yet, or the rest of the allies either for that matter.
and if you REALLY want to get into details i could also point out that a key aspect of Polands plans was based on the assurances of both France and Brition that as soons as germany attacked poland in the east that THEY would attack germany in the west. the ultiamte truth is that poland was destroyed because France/England failed to uphold HER promise and attack germany. who knows how the blitz of poland would have ended up if they had. instead of poland taking her place as the corner stone of the eastern front in an over all campaign involving all the allied powers, as one front in a multi-front war they were left too fight from an unwinable position by themsevles against an enemy that was only beatable by a combined attack of ALL its neighbors. couple this allready losing disadvantage with the 'stab in the back' by Russia and rather than say poland was weak and easy, you can get some glimmer of an idea that they were FAR from it and what they DID accomplish was nothing short of amazing.
i dont want any flag waving pissing contests here and to tweek nationel pride, but the truth is the allied powers both France and England fuck over pretty much every one of the pre war 'allies' and sold them out too Germany one at a time rather than too stand united and face them head on and get their own blood spilled. who knows what may have happend had france/england attack germany when they moved into Austria instead of shrugging it off, then stoping them when they moved into Czechoslovakia, again they could have been beaten with ease, instead they gave up these two key allies and FINALY decided to defend poland at all costs only to fail in THAT assurance as well.
the BIGGEST 'stab in the back' for poland came not from Germany or even Russia but from France and England when we come right down too it. this more than any other reason is why i have a dislike of France in the context of world history. France used all these nations to increase its importiance on the world stage, and to bully and abuse germany in the inter-war years that made something like the Nazi party even possable to begin with, and in the end simply abandoned them to Germany. england isnt quite as bad, but they share a portion of the blame for letting france take the 'lead roll' and refusing to stand up to germany if France didnt. one could argue taht what could England do to stop the germans if France wouldnt commit to war, but that line of argument is moot since in the end England with the help of Russia and America ended up facing germany without france anyhow.
sorry i got a bit long winded, but some things had to be put right. based on facts not a quick wikkie scan.
Wow, that was a long post though I cant help but to feel that it was futile in many ways since I agree to most of your points. I believe you exaggerated the advantages Germany had. Weak tanks, weak AT, less efficient economy due government control of the economy and tremendous aircraft losses to 'obsolete' Polish army. Allied attack to Germany could have easily won the war and Poland could have kept fighting for a long time thanks to their alliance with Romania and brilliant retreat plans, especially since Stalin would not have invaded Poland had allies intervened. Germany did not become excessively strong before 1940-1941 and even then, it never stood a chance against Soviet Union even if the allied would never have invaded Normandy.Wyatt said:
The only real quarrel I had with you was with the term "blitzkrieg". I agree on the points that it has always existed tactically, but I would like to point out that it has never existed on such a large strategic scale. This is why blitzkrieg is always a strategic operation to me, instead of a tactical one and there was only tactical part in Poland. Your definition of 'transitory blitz' between WW1 tactics and WW2 tactics is satisfactory.
heh , well a couple things you got wrong in this one too, but they are minor.Dele said:
1) weak armor. the fact is they HAD armor at all that was the key. that and how it was organized. WWI tactics had armor spread around as part of a native support for infantry units, not set up in units capable of acting on their own. the quality of the armor wasnt the issue, how it was organized and commpited to the battle was.
2) poor economy. this too is wrong. one of the major ADVANTAGES to Nazi germany through the entire war was their economy and the total gearing of that economy for war fighting. when you compare that economy to TODAY's standords, or even ot the THEN American economic standords it doesnt really shine, but when compaired to the local european economys it stands out as very sound and powerful. germany went from being a crushed and defeated enemy without poretty much any economy at all, to being the most powerful in Europe inside of 10 years. it was the Economy renual that let hitler fight the war at all in the first place.
3) heavy plane loses. that was something that turned out to be true of ALL Air forces. the polish air forces was wiped out, so one could argue that the native mission of having total controll of the Air was accomplished for the first time in history, but that isnt really the point of the subject at hand. the fact is, that just like the German armor formations the German Air Force was doing something not seen at all in WWI, the air force was for the first time in history actualy capable of having a real and powerful effect on battles. basicaly it was the first time that close air support WORKED. the total loss isnt really relivent and when looked at in context of the total losses of Air planes on ALL fronts in the war wasnt that far out of line, if at all.
i see that you and i just disagree on what 'blitzkrieg' means. you define it in a very narrow way while i define it as a radical change in general tactics. this isnt uncommon, and has been argued by many people over the years.
i can only say once again that if Germany had fought with the same tactics that were used in WWI, even with their new equipment than poland wouldnt have been defeated, atleast not as quick as they were. it was the change in tactics more than anthing else that won that battle. it wasnt at the same level as the blitzkrieg of France, nor was the blitz of France at the same level as the invasion of Russia, germany refined the tactics in each battle. but the kernal was there in poland. and more importiant it was that 'kernal' that allowed them to beat poland so soundly.
Youre changing the subject from poor German armor to their brilliant tactics. German tanks are ridiculously overrated as in reality they were little more than massively produced low quality piles of steel, not able to engage armors of Allies unless attacking en masse. There was nothing wrong in my statement here.Wyatt said:
Planned economy was the one single thing hurting German war effort the most. Even at it's height Germany was only little ahead of UK and Soviet Union, yet military production never really could compete with those two. Numbers received from Hitler and his little slave labour economy are unimpressive, even futher if we accept the fact that he had the resources of continental Europe at his disposal.Wyatt said:
Planned economy has never worked and never will work.
Again changing the subject aren't we? German aircraft losses were extremely high in all fronts period. I dont question the effectiveness or superiority of German planes, it just makes the situation slightly more humiliating for Luftwaffel. Nothing wrong with my statement there.Wyatt said:
Had the political situation been the same, Poland would have been conquerred hands down even with WWI tactics. I recall us coming to a conclusion that Allied support was the deciding factor in Invasion of Poland, not the tactics or hardware. I still stand by that pointWyatt said:
actualy german armor was very much better than its counterparts all through the war, till the russians fielded the JS1 and even then the tiger II was a better tank, they just couldnt produce enough of them or provide enough fuel by that point. the PRIME point here though was even the 'poor' german armor units used in poland were still FAR better than anything the polish could field, and again as i said if you couple this advantage with new tactics than the end rusult is just waht we got. total defeat.Dele said:
wrong. this is just flat out totaly wrong. the german economy (based largly on slave labor as it was) was as a percentage of the work force , TOTALY in a class of its own. it wasnt the planed economy that doomed Germany it was the lack of raw materials. your totaly missing my point, the talk is about Poland, when compaired to poland germany was in a class all its own, when you compair Germany to all OTHER european nations besides england and Russia germany outproduced them all. even in reguards to England and Russia if it wasnt for the help of America, Germany would have out produced THEM as well. the reason most of the allied leaders feared germany PRE war was its power of production and its economy. and finaly the Nazi germany economy is the one that is held up by economists the world over TODAY as to why a planed economy WILL work.
well not really, thats why i said it was a minor point. your imply that somehow the german air force was poor, or other wise didnt diserve the praise it gets. this is i think a prime example of how a history book can sometimes give the wrong idea while getting all the facts right.
we know NOW in hind sight that the german air force wasnt quite the screaming engine of destruction it was felt to be at the time. but at the time it was. its like we know NOW that alot of Russian nuclear missles were setting in water filled holes in the ground, but before we found this out we were scared to death of them. hind sight is allways 20/20. at the time, reguardless of the losses, the luftwaffe was basicaly the nuclear weapons of the day. not only were they feared because of the natural fear of air planes dropping bombs on your friggen head hundereds of miles from the 'front' but they were feared even MORE after poland because not only could they drop bombs on your citys far from the front, they DID do that, and when looked at in in reguards to how ineffective air war was in WWI, there was real cause for that fear.
i think my point here is your viewing the german air force as just another air force and when put side by side with other air forces it wasnt all THAT much better, in fact compaired to England it was quite alot worse. the thing your not taking into account from what i can judge is that it wasnt about win/loss numbers. it was about how valuable it was as a 'terror weapon' and in this reguard that is where the luftwaffe really shined.
one could argue though that this was also the ultimate down fall for germany. the luftwaffe was their 'super weapon', once that weapon was show to be not all that 'super', and was beaten back after the Battle of Britain that fear was broken to a large extent. it went from being a terror weapon to just another air force, and when the allies finaly got into a postion where they could not only beat back german attacks but launch regular and effective attacks of their own the ballance shifted to the Allies from then on out.
well the point at issue here is the total defeat of poland and how poland is often treated as some kind of a joke because germany so totaly crushed them. if however germany HAD fought poland using standard WWI tactics this wouldnt have been the case in my opinon.
it was a combination of both new german tactics and the total lack of allied support that lead to polands total defeat. basicaly poland was used pre-war as the target dummy to draw germanys best punch while France and England moved in from behind and finished off germany while germany was dealing with poland. poland accepted this roll, having no real choice in the matter , but when that german knock out punch landed, it was both MUCH more powerful than was expected and the allies never moved in support, so instead of taking a beating but surviving with the help of its allies and turning the germans back, they just got ran over.
its hardly fair for ANYONE too say that poland was a joke, the deck was stacked against them from the very outset, they were going to take a pounding no matter HOW the matter played out, it was just the extream cowardess of the French (and the british to a lesser extent) coupled with the Russian 'stab in the back'. toss into that mix the new german tactics and equipment and it went from being a beating and possable loss, too a rout and total destruction.
im sure you agree with me, and this part of the post isnt really aimed at you anyhow. its more in line with the Ops topic about her annoyance at how the defeat of poland is often show as some kind of a joke, and poland is viewed as bumbling backwards fools, when the truth is this is FAR from the case. and when you add in that often times those same 'history shows' go on to make it seem the allies were all 'heroic' and somehow single handedly fought off the Nazies with a note book, 3 paper clips and nothing but pluck and courage it just futher adds insult to injury. it was those "heroic" allies that lead to polands defeat in the first place.
the truth is poland took it in the ass and was bent over an raped by germany AND her allies. germany may have been the one pushing the dick in , but her 'allies' were the ones that sliped the drugs into her drink and left her alone in that dark alley.
On the contrary of my usual habit, this will be my last post to this thread since I think we are more or less going circles. Feel free to PM me if you want to continue this.
I am going to repeat here, Germany failed to utilize their own and economy of conquerred areas to outproduce allies due nature of planned economy. The only reason it could even think of attacking Soviets was because Soviets also were a scr..planned economy. Otherwise they would have had around the same strenght as USA. Free market can also be fully geared towards war just like a planned economy, it just does the same thing a lot better.
Panzer I and II were jokes that could not even scratch British and French armour, by the time Germans could field Panzer III and IV, they were already facing T-34. Where is this superiority you are talking about? My point here was that Germany won through tactics alone even with inferior armor.Wyatt said:
Who are these economists you are talking about? Marxists have been laughed out of the field and fail to engage in any scientific discussion. Only 'economists' supporting "planned economy" are socialist keynesians, who are the economical equilevant of Bobo the clown.Wyatt said:
I am going to repeat here, Germany failed to utilize their own and economy of conquerred areas to outproduce allies due nature of planned economy. The only reason it could even think of attacking Soviets was because Soviets also were a scr..planned economy. Otherwise they would have had around the same strenght as USA. Free market can also be fully geared towards war just like a planned economy, it just does the same thing a lot better.
My point was that Lufwaffe (along with German tanks and economy) was and still is overrated considering their huge losses, not that it could not get it's job done and cause hell of a scare effect. I dont see how your post answered to any of that so I am just gonna leave it here.Wyatt said:
Repeating again? It's hard for me for me not to do the same as you presented no reasons why Germany would have lost with WWI tactics, despite having all the possible advantages a country could have.Wyatt said:
this would be the nub i think. we not arguing , atleast im not, about the topic. we ARE in agreement more or less except for a few small points. my reply is more in the nature of compairing notes and just exchanging opinions that any actualy argument. for me the topic is that Poland gets treated very unfairly in most history shows, actualy in MOST 'popular media' in general, one really needs to 'dig deep' to get at the truth.Dele said:
anyhow, i did present my reasons why germany would have lost if they used WWI tactics. it seems atleast semi-clear to me that had germany invaded poland, using WWI tactics, that number 1 poland would have been able to stand up to them much better. number two the fact that poland didnt fall apart in less than 2 weeks MAY <--- MAY have caused France and England to open the western front, it MAY have also caused the Russians to not attack them (assuming the allies DID mvoe in support that is), given this combination of factors, its clear to me that Germany would have lost.
in a straight up 1 v 1 fight even using WWI tactics poland would have still lost IMO, but it wouldnt have been a walk over. poland was ONE piece in a multi piece plan that had them taking the first punch and the allies moving in after that punch to clean germanys clock. instead what happend is poland took that punch, that punch turned out to be MUCH stronger that was expected and its allies, instead of following through with the expected counter attack, gave poland up as lost.
now 70 years later, we see most of our popular media playing down Polands roll, and in almost every case germanys attack on poland is show as an example of the 'power' of Germany, and no mention is ever given to the fact that it wasnt german power that was the real key to polands defeat, but it was allied cowardess that was.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
feel free to skip this part its just some back story to the context of the times too anyone else who may be reading and is interested. it gives some details to enhance my statments above and show why i reached my conclusions.
ill flat out say that poland COULD have been saved if the allies had attacked in the west. they might still have been beaten and occupied but instead of wating for another 6 years it would have been a short time while the allies overran germany from its un-protected west. and had the allies moved fast enough, Russia may not have attacked poland at all. most of the actual history texts ive seen say that in effect stalin only attacked poland because number 1 the allies showed they were NOT willing to fight for poland, and number 2 because of this he had ery little choice but to buy time against germany and the best way of doing this, a cold hard fact, was to take over alarger chunk of poland as a buffer zone against germany. had the allies supported poland, shown stalin they WERE willing to go too the mat against Hitler in support of their allies, i can say that perhaps stalin would have allied Russia with France and England much sooner.
there is another point here though that often gets no notice. and that is this. in the pre-war years leading up to 39, the french and the english held talks with stalin about the germans. the allies were trying to establish an alliance with Russia, Stalin was willing, but insisted on practical details, when asked naturaly what polands attitude would be to getting Russian support (meaning Russian armys fighting germans IN poland), the pol's balked and refused too allow Russian troops into their country to fight the germans. Stalin then asked how it was possable for Russia to fight the germans when they couldnt even get too them, the allies insisted that 'when the time came' that poland would allow Russian troops passage through poland. Stalin felt this was a joke. he assumed that the allies couldnt be trusted to actualy FIGHT, and was nervious about getting Russia commited to a battle with germany while France and England escaped the war.
had the allies told poland flat out that either they accept Russian help or they were on their own, things may have been much different. if the pols didnt agree, than they would lose alone. THEN the allies of France England and RUSSIA would have been in a much more powerful position to fight germany. instead the allies let poland waffle on the Russian question, untill Stalin had no real choice but to come to terms with Germany. since the 'allies' couldnt get their heads out of their asses and tell poland how it was gunna be. too be sure there was a ton of reasons to mistrust, all hands around. Stalin didnt trust the allies OR germany (for good reasons he felt) the allies didnt actualy trust Russia (for good reasons they felt) and Hitler split the middle. it was a masterful example of Germany using politics to win battle field victorys.
let me give you a final example of how i see this whole thing.
what ACTUALY happened : the allies (pre-war) wanted to rope Russia into an alliance against Germany but didnt trust Stalin and with good reason. at the same time though they (along with the pol's) didnt want Russian troops IN poland at any time short of an actual shooting war with germany.
the Pols however didnt want Russian troops at ALL, for good reason. Poland couldnt actualy see the difference between being occupied by Germany, or occupied by Russia. the thinking gos that in either case Poland would be the second largest army in their own country.
Russia, after seeing that the allies as well as poland wouldnt commit to any kind of a sensable planed defence by insisting that Russia not actualy enter into poland basicaly gave the whole cause up as lost. Stalin assumed with a not all together wrong idea, that France and england were trying to set up conditions that would get Germany and Russia into a war with each other wich would allow THEM to avoid the german hammer, while Russia and Germany destroyed each other. Stalin didnt really have a choice but to deal with Hitler as he did. it was either deal with hitler or fight him ....... Alone, as he saw it. a good example of this was when the allies and the russians were holding talks, the Russian team said ,we are ready to commit 160 division's agaisnt Germany, they then asked England how many they could commit, the English officer said 6 now and 6 more in a few months time. cant really blaim Stalin for not trusting the allies in the face of that can you?
in any event Germany came to a deal with Russia, then attacked Poland, when Poland was hit harder than expected by the German blitz, the allies (naturaly you could argue) had a moment of pause in the face of this German attack. during this pause Stalin, seeing that the Allies would NOT come too polands aid as he feared all along then moved against poland himself. the allies in turn seeing that poland was now in a vice between Germany and Russia gave up any possable idea of attacking germany, and fearing that germany had now created a full blown allians with Russia were of corse scared of having to face both germany and russia.
what SHOULD have happened: the allies should have forced poland to accept Russian troops as allies, pre war. this could have and probibaly WOULD have had the effect of stoping Hitler from attacking poland at all. (of corse then poland would have become a Russian subject in stead of a german one, not a very good deal for poland either way).
in the event that Poland WASNT forced to accept Russian help, than the allies still should have attacked germany the instiant germany moved on poland. this would have had the effect in my opinion of both showing Stalin that his fears were wrong about the level of allied commitment to its allies and in this event he could have been possably roped into HELPING poland rather than stabing her in the back. and even if Russia had chosen to stay out of it totaly. it was still the allies best chance to beat germany by destroying their country while the germans armys were busy in Poland.
in popular media the invasion of Poland is reduced to two 'facts'. number 1 poland was the first open battle of the war and the cause of the allies actualy declaring war on germany. and number 2 its used as THEE example of the 'power' of the nazi 'war machine'.
neither of these facts are quite true. the first act of german agression was against austria, and 'power' of the nazi 'war machine' handnt actualy reached its full scope yet. the attack on France was MUCH more powerful all hands around, and was perhaps the first example of a full on blitz.
as i have said, popular media often gets some facts right, but leaves out whole swaths of context that actualy show those facts in a different light. the numbers are often right, but the conclusions offered are in almost all cases very very wrong. and those conclusions tha rer wrong are IMPORTIANT ones. because we often make these same mistakes AGAIN today.
if the point too history is to learn from it (and i feel it is) than its self evident that you need to have presetned the right information and too draw the right conclusions. not have it reduced to an entertainment show where the TRUTH is often subverted in the interests of compelling re-writes of the details of history that dont make for good entertainment.
and i say to any of you wann-be history buffs out there to keep this in mind. pay attention too not only the information your viewing, but MORE importiant pay attention too the sources and possable motivations of those presenting this information. TV shows arent interested in getting the details right, they are interested in ratings and income.
the PI and PII werent actualy designed to go into combat, they were training vehicles. and when they were used against polish horse Cavalry did well enough, the PIII and PIV were indeed outclassed by the T-34, thus the creation of fielding of the PV (panther) PVI (tiger) and the PVI (king tiger) that WERE a match for allied armor and in fact the King Tiger could defeat ANY allied tanks with ease.Dele said:
too say that tactics alone was the be all end all of the war simply shows that you get your information in blurbs and sounds bites instead of actualy becoming informed about the details. the entire corse of the war, indeed of ALL weapons development cycles of all nations is just a continueation of build/counter build.
too pick out one step in this cycle/counter cycle, when one side has a temporary advantage and claim 'victory' is nonsense. the REAL genius of the germans was to strike when THEY had the temporary advantage in this cycle.
ill ask you just one question then, how is it that the British empire, that controlled over 1/4 of the entire planet couldnt out produce germany who owned one small chunk in central Europe?
you take germany, a smallish nation locked in the center of europe, with very little if any 'outside' support. surrounded on ALL sides by enemys, and you combine 2 of the 3 largest nations in the world AND the largest Empire to ever exist and use THIS as your example of why a 'planed economy' wont work?
thats dumb. i mean Jesus you put 70% of the populations and resources of the ENTIRE world against germany's lil slice in central Europe and use this as the center piece of your argument as to why germanys planed economy DIDNT work.
id say that given the ballance of resources and populations that the fact that germany wasnt swarmed under in an Avalanche of troops, and supplys the first 20 minuts of the war is nothing short of amazing.
you lump 3/4 of the worlds resources on one side of the scales and then give the other 1% that germany represents on the other side and say the germanys did a poor job of economic planing? by God id say the fact that they held out for 6 years against such odds alone proves your argument wrong. germany was NEVER going to win a war of production given its enemys and THEIR resources. it was only their planed economy that let them hold out against such odds as long as they did.
and as a lil *boop* on the nose for you as i move on, let me say that the allies had planed economys too .........*gasp* yes even America. after all Rationing is the key stone to a planed economy is it not?
the thing your missing is it WASNT over rated, your applying TODAYS concepts to YESTERDAYS new ideas. at the time the luftwaffle wasnt 'just another air force' they were the new wave, the latest and greatest, a totaly new way to make war. the luftwaffe is thee model all major air forces are built on today.
sure you can look back from today and say "meh, they werent all that impressive" and given the loses and defeats your right......... but thats from looking at the situation with the benifit of hind sight.
the humor being, this is JUST the actions that the OP was bitching about. in hind sight they DIDNT ammount too all that much. but at the TIME they were the terror of europe. they were the first and were feared as an unknown, their reputation was all out of purportion too their actual effectivness, much like say ....... the stealth bombers/fighters of America are today. we Americans pride ourselves on our air force (with, i think, good reason) but its a little hard to say that the B2 program ISNT a touch over rated when a guy with an AK-47 can (and did) shoot one billion doller plane down isnt it?
dont you think its possable that 70 years from NOW that people then will look back and laugh and giggle and point at that B2 loss as an example of how Americas stealth bomber force was 'over rated'? while people alive today and for the last 15-20 years have had a certian level of respect for it despite its obvious short comings?
this core of this thread is about our views now of history and how they are often wrong. how we look back from the advantage of hind sight today and judge actions and events then from OUR point of view. your doing this, and especialy with the topic of the luftwaffe. your adding up numbers on a sheet and making blanket statments that dont take into account all the billion and one other factors and details that seperate reality from history books.
the german air force set the bar by wich all OTHER Air forces then and since use to measure their over all abilitys. it was only after the allies learned to fight like the germans that they started beating the germans. and THAT is the key point your not getting. the germans didnt just fail the test, they WROTE the test, and thats what makes them worthy of respect and what makes their air force NOT as over rated as you may want to think.