Which WWII Officer/General is your role model?

You do realize that its a conspiracy theory surrounding the idea that Pieper committed suicide. It was officially listed as a homicide due to the fact that the town was up in arms and that his family had received many death threats. Furthermore I have read Parker's Book (s) and am not a fan of his articulation and methodology thus I do not agree with all of his conclusions.

NO SOLDIER IS EVER INSIGNIFICANT, FOR NO HUMAN LIFE IS WORTH ANY LESS THAN ANOTHERS.

There's also the thing with him being killed by "communists". To many, myself included, he wasn't a real soldier- He was a SS gangster. (no offense Das Doom)

I prefer if the same people would use their talents to do a bio on accomplished soldiers, rather than this man.

No Offense taken; however, he served thus he was a soldier. He experienced war not unlike millions of other humans. My question to you then is have you served in a combat zone? If not then you have no right to state if he as a real soldier or not.

Personally I would like more bio's on men whom were never in the spotlight but because there was no spotlight there is less data to go on to create said bio.

My question to you then is have you served in a combat zone? If not then you have no right to state if he as a real soldier or not.

I might take issue with that, because that sentiment ultimately strikes at the concept of civilian control of the military.

We have the right to judge, but we also have the obligation to inform ourselves

My definition of a soldier is more complicated than that, I won't get into it.

I might take issue with that, because that sentiment ultimately strikes at the concept of civilian control of the military.

We have the right to judge, but we also have the obligation to inform ourselves

My Question is valid. If you have not served in a combat zone you can not effectively evaluate the choices made because you have not made them (This is a general scope granted). One can judge all they want but if their qualifications are not there then their point holds no merit. Its like having a Computer Programmer being told hes not a real programmer by a Milk Man. Do I make sense?

The Halder/von Bock war diaries (1941-1942) clearly indicate that FAE did not succeed in providing sufficient strategic intelligence for the Ostheer. They went to war with quite an incomplete understanding of the enemy coalition. For the rest of the war in the East, this was actually quite often the case with Front or multi-Front offensives being undetected. To be fair, to be on top of these things would have required a very powerful intelligence organ that just wasn't there. Thus from top down to AG level there were weaknesses besides political.

However, in the Bread & Butter of war the Wehrmacht was fine. Army and below

NO SOLDIER IS EVER INSIGNIFICANT, FOR NO HUMAN LIFE IS WORTH ANY LESS THAN ANOTHERS.

On a level of morality yes you are correct. But in the face of industrialist warfare, not really. Humans die in droves. In anonymous bombstrikes, for standing up, for being in the wrong place in the wrong time. Those are reasons entire lives are lost. Human stories just as your own. Going through school; that one time you called the teacher mom, when you ran away from home, all those things wiped in a second for reasons that bottle down to random chance.

There is no glory nor honour in war, it is all a terrible plauge on our species. War is not hell, it is stupidity. Meaningless stupidity. Individuals perish for no fault of their own.

Individuals that serve should not be glorified nor idolized but you should feel empathy and pity for the hardships they went through.

War is the worst of humanity and no matter your cause, dead bodies on the battlefield is a price to expensive to pay.

Now I know you will think "Well what if someone tries to murder and enslave you? And attacks you?"

Well the ones trying to do that are not demons but humans, being led or misled.

Putting yourself in a situation in which war is unavoidable is having been stupid. Going to war when you have a choice not to, I would consider you retarded.
The second part applying both to collective and individual entities.

On a level of morality yes you are correct. But in the face of industrialist warfare, not really. Humans die in droves. In anonymous bombstrikes, for standing up, for being in the wrong place in the wrong time. Those are reasons entire lives are lost. Human stories just as your own. Going through school; that one time you called the teacher mom, when you ran away from home, all those things wiped in a second for reasons that bottle down to random chance.

There is no glory nor honour in war, it is all a terrible plauge on our species. War is not hell, it is stupidity. Meaningless stupidity. Individuals perish for no fault of their own.

Individuals that serve should not be glorified nor idolized but you should feel empathy and pity for the hardships they went through.

War is the worst of humanity and no matter your cause, dead bodies on the battlefield is a price to expensive to pay.

Individuals that serve should not be glorified for their acts nor should they be idolized for it but they should be Honored for they are enacting a sense of sacrifice. Not honoring the soldier, no matter what political institution he served (in this case the German Army) for being a soldier is despicable IMHO. I do not praise acts that were criminal put I honor the decision made to die if need be and serve next to brothers in arms. I have seen the horrors of war through my brothers nightmares, his wounds, the funerals of his friends. Going through what he did taught me that Swede you are correct but at the same time to not honor the sacrifice every soldier made is not an option.

On a level of morality yes you are correct. But in the face of industrialist warfare, not really. Humans die in droves. In anonymous bombstrikes, for standing up, for being in the wrong place in the wrong time. Those are reasons entire lives are lost. Human stories just as your own. Going through school; that one time you called the teacher mom, when you ran away from home, all those things wiped in a second for reasons that bottle down to random chance.

There is no glory nor honour in war, it is all a terrible plauge on our species. War is not hell, it is stupidity. Meaningless stupidity. Individuals perish for no fault of their own.

Individuals that serve should not be glorified nor idolized but you should feel empathy and pity for the hardships they went through.

War is the worst of humanity and no matter your cause, dead bodies on the battlefield is a price to expensive to pay.

Good post .. though you might have added that the young pay for the failures of the old...

It disturbs me to see the faces of very young German soldiers marching off down the road in Normandy with panzerfausts and innocent smiles on their faces... how many returned? Whilst on the other hand, my sentiments militate against this, because of my own nationality. It is why I always support the EU, despite its shortcomings... but I wander..

Back to topic

Don't have too much time, so I am gonna break this down into multiple installments, starting with Peiper.
Doomturtle, etc.:
I don't think Jochen Peiper was brainwashed in the usual or any understanding of the word, not at all. He was not Generation Hitlerjugend, but as Westemann put it, Generation Junkerschule. He had not been socialised in a hardcore brown, wartime setting, he had not been subjected to the NS propaganda effort as an adolescent and his decision to join the SS was clearly conscious and deliberate. Moreover, he was by no means the type of mindless follower, au contraire, and he later proved to not only understand and accept the tenets of NS-ideology and what it entailed at the Junkerschule ("der Stoßtrupp des Blutgedankens"), but embrace it beyond its downfall.

Clearly he was an idealist, and just like so many adherents of the two great totalitarian narratives in the 20th century, his yardstick of right and wrong was determined first and foremost by whatever served their interest, consciously rejecting "conventional morality", a topos you will regularly encounter in both Marxism and Fascism/Nazism(although I would consider the latter to be an ideology sui generis, and not just a subset of Fascism).

I think this also goes a long way in explaining his rejection of the more conservative, materialist society of the emerging Federal Republic beyond the mere ennui of the former soldier.

In the end, he proved quite willing to sacrifice just about everything on the altar of his conviction, including his own kin...
However cheesy that may sound, I think he was quite simply evil.

As for his military skillsets, to the extent of my knowledge the only formal military training he ever received was a 6 week course to qualify him as an infantry platoon leader, he had no formal training in the application of armour or the handling of larger formations. This of course is not to necessarily imply that he was inept at all, he obviously also accumulated a lot of hands-on experience, but it should put things in perspective. I haven't read Parker, and I don't have Westemanns book here (both have cooperated extensively btw), but I strongly recall several bitter complaints by former Leibstandarte men about his excessive micromanagement and lack of understanding for the requirements of armoured formations, not to mention the flat refusal of one of his bataillon commanders to subordinate his Grenadiers to Peiper lest he would get them killed...Anyways, I'll look this up tomorrow again and give the actual citations.

Parker parrots the Jens W. combat incompetence story. I dunno, I find the appraisal of commanders not really complete without referencing a quality op history from both sides and the full circumstances. Commanders have bad days and good days. They should also be compared to expectations: their peers to a certain extent, and what the dynamics of the battlefield were of the times. More important than this is what the enemy was doing. I have elements from various books that cover the offensive bid for Kiev but none are really good enough. It would be terrific if Nipe and Glantz were to produce something in this area years down the line.

In english, there is a two-volume history of the Zhitomir–Berdichev Offensive available but it only refers to the action after the end of the German offensive and it is mostly only from the german pov. The weakened 48.PzK is now on the defensive.

With german armored warfare field officers, Manteuffel, Balck, Saucken, Strachwitz , Hoth, Guderian, Kleist, and Hube were among the rockstars. There was a bio done on Strachwitz not long ago.

Personally I would like more bio's on men whom were never in the spotlight but because there was no spotlight there is less data to go on to create said bio.

I dunno, I find the appraisal of commanders not really complete without referencing a quality op history from both sides and the full circumstances. Commanders have bad days and good days. They should also be compared to expectations: their peers to a certain extent, and what the dynamics of the battlefield were of the times. More important than this is what the enemy was doing.

I happened to stumble upon this article regarding the exceptional performance of The US Army 88th Infantry Division earlier today.

http://lavoiedelepee.blogspot.fr/2015/03/le-mystere-de-la-88e-division.html

It's a short blog post by one of my teachers at university, Colonel Michel Goya. However it is written in French, most of you will need a translator.

Basically a short appraisal of Trevor Dupuy's book Understanding War: History and Theory of Combat. Specifically the chapter devoted to measuring the efficiency of 24 divisions from 3 different nationalities (German, American, British) during the Italy Campaign (1943-1945). So this seems to partly meet your criteria. From there he elaborates on the importance of good leadership and how it is a major factor in an unit's excellence.

Never heard of this senior field officer either, US General John Emmit Sloan. He must be quite underrated if we take into consideration he lead the highest rated Allies division of WW2 according to Trevor Dupuy.

I still find it very relevant to the ongoing discussion, so thought it's worth sharing.

P.S. I haven't read any of the quoted books, I'm not that into WW2 history to devote any serious time to it. My studies keep me busy with the more recent literature and also the classics.

thanks for the link. I know about Dupuy; they sell an information product. They largely use empirical techniques and approach the issue like statisticians. This is however, only a piece of the whole, the whole of which is highly subjective.

As far the blog article goes it is interesting but there are a few missing facets- such as logistical history - that would be needed to fill a thorough appraisal. Long-lived units tend to have a "life cycle" of sorts that rises and falls. The really effective units stick out among their peers and tend to have the operational impact of 2 or 3, rather than 1 unit. Like in many fields in life, 5,000 lions will outperform 15,000 donkeys.

P.S. I haven't read any of the quoted books, I'm not that into WW2 history to devote any serious time to it. My studies keep me busy with the more recent literature and also the classics.

Ten years ago, I told myself the same. Eventually the interest creeps back in and I specialized like many people tend to do. I frankly believe that the interest in WW2 is lifelong for many, if not most

The thing about my men when I play, is I get shit done even if I sacrifice a few. No one dies in vain, because the unit as a whole has a tendency to win battles, and even if they lose, maximize casualties on the enemy. I don't win every match, but I do my best to insure the enemy has a hefty price to pay for going against my men. This is why Gotthard Heinrici is my #1 favorite WWII General and who I look up to when I'm in game. He knew how to maximize enemy casualties while minimizing his own, even if the battle was impossible for him to win (SeeLow Heights)

Jeepers creepers,I thought this was a place for fanboying about ones favorite officers not a discussion on the philosophical ideals of the individual soldier and the crap they had to go through...but then again...

I suppose Kurt Knispel being one of the greatest tank aces and a generally good guy gives merit to him being THE tank legend.*(just a random thought...)* wait this is about Peiper isnt it?

Individuals that serve should not be glorified for their acts nor should they be idolized for it but they should be Honored for they are enacting a sense of sacrifice. Not honoring the soldier, no matter what political institution he served (in this case the German Army) for being a soldier is despicable IMHO.

Well that's true, as far as it goes. But the flipside is that the cause of "honoring soldiers" can also be hijacked by political movements and exploited for ends that are ultimately to the detriment of soldiers, past and future. A common example is the claim that to to end a conflict is in some way a betrayal of the sacrifices already made, but this disregards all the sacrifices that it is effectively calling to be made in the future.

The moral of the story is that we should all be extremely wary of politicians who claim that their military experience is a credential for office, or that this or that policy should be adopted for the sake of of the military. War is, frankly, far too important an issue to be left to the military alone.

War is, frankly, far too important an issue to be left to the military alone.

Fascinating discussion chaps.

This line is all the more true given the era of total war that began with World War I...


With regards to honouring the soldiers.
This is an awkward spot for me and I still don't have an adequate answer to the problems I have with this sentiment.
Often you'll find that when you criticise either the nature of the war or the soldiers themselves, be it for crimes or whatever, you'll run into this attitude that makes the soldiers inviolate. You cannot comment critically on the war without being labelled by your detractors as a person who disrespects the sacrifice of those soldiers. We have this problem in Australia, where this thing called the "Anzac spirit" is trumpetted about which effectively says "Australian soldiers are better than other people's soldiers for a these reasons". Anybody who questions how brave and how great mates these soldiers were immediately comes under fire for disrespecting them.
A similar problem, on a more international level, comes with the memory of Wehrmacht soldiers. On one level, they were simple guys who like everyone else had been conscripted/indoctrinated (remember the measures the Nazis took to get the people, in particular children, onto their side?) into the Wehrmacht and were told to fight and did.
On the other hand, they fought for the worst regime the world had known (sorry, but the communists only managed to get close, not surpass them), they made possible the bringing of that terrible regime to most of Europe and committed unspeakable acts themselves.
But... they're still conscripted, they're still caught up in this terrible war their leadership brought on them... and they've been indoctrinated by the Nazi Propaganda machine...
So what's the neat little middle ground in this? Because you can't just commemorate the soldiers and forget the unspeakable acts they fought to defend and yet if you don't commemorate them then you're disrespecting those men who fought and often didn't have much choice.