"What WW II Germans Thought of British, US, & Soviet soldiers" Topic

Gentlefolk!

The above question was posted to the information service "Quora, and the following reply was interesting enough that I feel sure it would be appreciated by some of you here.

While I find the reply very interesting, I take no position on it, nor can I say anything about the qualifications of the author and his source.

"Daniel Holland
1.9k upvotes by Rich Young (U.S. Navy – Naval Aviation 1958-1961. Norman, O… (more) ),Bobbie Ragsdale (U.S. Army Cavalry Officer), Eric Tseng (Paratrooper, Troop Commander, U.S. Army), Andrew Markley (US Army Ranger), (more)

I have had the benefit of having a frank, open, and long conversation with a survivor of the 276th Volksgrenadier Division. During this conversation, I asked him what his comrades thought of various adversaries and allies. To limit it to the above:

Russians: Propaganda depicted them as subhumans, not worthy of any degree of respect. Experience showed them as capable soldiers. He did note that because of the cruelty inflicted on the Russian people by large portions of the German military (In particular, the SS) the Russians were returning the favor as they entered Europe. When I asked if they were feared, all he would respond with is that he was glad he was able to surrender to the Americans instead.

English: Competent, professional, but a bit slow. British forces tended to only attack with absolutely overwhelming force, and while he respected their individual skill, he held British commanders as overly cautious.

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

Which, by the way, I'm totally willing to believe."

Written 2 Apr. 213,971 views.

TVAG

These jive with what I've read from other accounts.

It has been awhile since my last reading of The German Generals Talk (aka The Other Side of the Hill) by B.H. Liddell Hart but I believe when he asked a similar question the response in terms of the British and Americans is very close to what is reflected above. I can't really remember what was said about the Russians.

My dad (US Airborne) felt the same about the British.

He said they captured some German prisoners near the end that wondered where the US got "belt-fed" artillery.

In college (circa 1983ish) we had a guest speaker who was a Luftwaffe pilot. He didn't care much for the Italians as allies, but admired the Finns.

Very interesting observation, based on my readings i see why those statements were made. It would have been interesting to ask him what he thought about his own countrymen/comrades in battle.

I suggest reading the intelligence summaries. I do not know the individual but a soldier of the 276th Volksgrenadier Division does not strike me as a great authority on the European armies of WWII.

These read like post war stereotypes to me. Is there any good evidence to back up these perceptions? I'm sure there were perceived differences between east and west but I don't think the Germans saw the western allies as very different at all.

e.g. Rundstedt makes no distinction between US or British troops in his report below, either on grounds of professionalism or aggression, and uses the broad term Anglo-Saxons to describe his opposition. He sees the significant factors as logistics, training, air superiority, airborne and naval support.

link

Likewise Jodl and Keitel's report makes it clear they consistently viewed the British sector as the greater threat and were not expecting an American breakout. It seems therefore unlikely that there was an established perception that the British were cautious or the Americans aggressive.

link

Also, in this German Army Report there is no distinction made between the aggression or professionalism of the Allied troops. The only mentions of quality are that the allies maintained the initiative across the front requiring units to be thrown immediately into the line and that a steady advance was maintained in the west by the endurance of the American units there. Again hardly conforming to the stereotypes.

link

I'd be interested if there are contemporary accounts that back up these perceptions though. My examples are quite high level and I'm no authority on the subject.

regards,

Trev

I mean, one guy is going to have his opinions based on what he saw.

A different guy is going to have different opinions based on what they say.

Both of those guys might right in their specific circumstances.

I wonder how many German soldiers can have had practical significant experience against the Russians, Americans, *and* the British.

More than you would think tuscaloosa. Yes, Germany fought on two fronts which was a disadvantage, but she used the one advantage they had very heavily- interior lines.

II SS Panzer Corps is an example.

It was raised and fought on the Eastern Front in '43. Then it was rushed over to Normandy where it fought against the British, and at times, Americans. Then you have their actions at Arnhem, and subsquent actions all over the the Western Front against the western allies. Then it was regrouped for the Bulge where it fought some more then it raced to the Eastern Front, again, where it fought against the Soviets in Hungry and into Germany where it surrendered, on the western front, to the US.

I wouldn't be the least surprised to find other units that saw so much action on so many fronts against many different foes.

As for a grunt from the 276th VG being an authority…, well, lets say he's probably much more of an expert on this subject than any of us on TMP and arguably more of an expert than 99% of anyone else alive!

"Likewise Jodl and Keitel's report makes it clear they consistently viewed the British sector as the greater threat and were not expecting an American breakout. It seems therefore unlikely that there was an established perception that the British were cautious or the Americans aggressive"

That had more to do with the terrain than anything else.

I always wonder at the respect given to the opinions of the upper rank of Germans. After all, they are the ones who managed to lose two world wars. Perhaps their judgments are somewhat overrated?

As for a grunt from the 276th VG being an authority…, well, lets say he's probably much more of an expert on this subject than any of us on TMP and arguably more of an expert than 99% of anyone else alive!

He was also on the receiving end of military propaganda and barracks gossip, so he'd have a fairly strong grasp of public opinions.

But he was also on the sharp end against these forces so I think he has some room to talk about how they fight.

As per the Americans, it jives with something from the Pacific Theater. A Japanese general, post-war, was asked which of this former foes were the best jungle fights. He said "The Australians." When asked about the Americans, he responded "they didn't fight in the jungles, they removed them."

In the Korean War, the Commonwealth Division was always being slow in the advance north. When the Chinese entered the fray, the Americans were sent reeling while the Commonwealth Division hung tough. An American general commented "Fortunately, they don't back up good either."

Interesting article on this theme by Anthony Beevor:

link

I like the closing sentiments.

I remember reading an account of the post surrender interview with a German soldier from some late war infantry division. When asked about armor in combat he stated that he thought that the Sherman was the best tank in combat.

It seems that the interviewer was surprised by his response, given the reputation of heavier German tanks and asked why he felt the Sherman was the best combat tank.

The German soldier responded that it was because the Sherman was the only tank he had ever seen in combat and it seemed to do very well.

I remember an interview with a Ukrainian "volunteer" who captured in Normandy. What got him as a). the number of tanks he saw. He said you could go weeks w/o seeing a German tank, and b). No one even bothered to disarm them for a very long time.

read page 184 of John Frosts "A DROP TO MANY " he Describes the D.L.I.'S assault in the Primosole Bridge area. This statement stands out "WE had never taken part in such an operation and having seen this were determined never to do so again.

Very interesting but not surprising. This was of course one man's opinion – as he chose to express it to his captors. That his captors asked of their own reputation, what might you have thought to say?
He was not a general so his views are limited to his man-on-man experiences. As far as British caution and American bravado is concerned, it seems consistent with the respective national approach to combat by 1944 from all I have read over the years. Generals tended to be more cavalier with the lives of their troops when they had lots of them and knew they could be replaced. Small armies have fewer chances to recover from failure and this tends to make them more risk averse. That the British learnt caution after all those years of operational failure against Rommel I am not surprised. Let's not forget, armies like people are less likely to learn from a mistake when the results were glossed over with overall success. The British had plenty of cause for critical self-analysis between Operations Compass and Supercharge.
Being in a room full of allies for a year in an operational theatre demonstrated that people are quick to criticise their allies as soon as they leave the room. So, with the greatest of respect I don't think any individual opinions about the prowess or approach of one ally over another should be taken as unqualified confirmation.BUT there is a consistency with the above which is not stereo-typical I suspect – just typical and probably accurate.

As for a grunt from the 276th VG being an authority…, well, lets say he's probably much more of an expert on this subject than any of us on TMP and arguably more of an expert than 99% of anyone else alive!

So he can be expected to be familiar with issues such as the details outlined in:
Fighting Power: German and U.S. Army Performance, 1939-1945 or Raising Churchill's Army: The British Army and the War against Germany 1919-1945?

I always wonder at the respect given to the opinions of the upper rank of Germans.

Because the purpose of a central headquarters is to consolidate data and provide effective analysis for objective review and decision making. Individual input is purely subjective. Operational Research made a significant contribution to allied victory; it was their data analysis which lengthened the pattern of aerial depth charges that was so deadly to U-Boats but done in the teeth of the opposition of the air crews who wanted them concentrated on the aiming point as they believed, wrongly, that they had a deadly aim. Thus the analysis of performance by the headquarters of the enemy is most illuminating … but not definitive.

Very interesting but not surprising. This was of course one man's opinion – as he chose to express it to his captors. That his captors asked of their own reputation, what might you have thought to say?
He was not a general so his views are limited to his man-on-man experiences.

Exactly so and well stated.

"II SS Panzer Corps is an example"

The Panzer Corps were fire brigades, whisked hither and yon to put out fires, and the variety of opponents they saw action against were not representative of infantrymen in general.

one man's opinion, by definition subjective and likely not 100% accurate given the complexity of the subject being asked about. These types of threads invariably devolve into "our team was tougher than yours, just ask the bad guy who we beat"
Though it's been widely reported that the Americans liked to blow things to smithereens wherever possible and the British were a little more conservative with their resources – however neither idea speaks to the individual toughness of the soldiers doing the fighting