failures turned into thriumps

[nuarbnellaffej]

The Germany "victories" against Imperial Russia in 1917 and France in 1940 both left Germany in a far worse off position. Really they are examples of triumphs that were failures in disguise.

I have to strongly disagree with this statement here. Had the Wallies been able to bog down the Germans in France during WWII, then the Germans would have been infinitely worse off. Yes their position was still untenable in the long run but it's crazy to think that it hurt them more than helped them.

I would say the same for Russia's' collapse in WWI, even though it was still a massive burden for the Germans to occupy, that situation is still much better than an active front sucking in munitions and men.

Also, I understand that the Germans would have been better off still, had they not gone to war in the first place.

Edit: instead of say Germany would have been better off if France lost quickly, I should have said hitler would be better off.. It does make sense in a way, that had the Germans failed to knock out France quickly, the war would have likely ended much sooner than in OTL.

But then again, I think France falling puts Germany in a better negotiating position if they were serious about making peace, but we all know that was never gonna happen with hitler in charge, with his plans for the East..

 

[DoomBunny]

I'd say Barbarossa was one of the most succesful military campaigns in history, over enormous distances.

Tactically and operationally, yes. As I said, the Prussian/German school could achieve great things on the battlefield. But when it came to the longterm of Barbarossa, well, there wasn't one. Indeed, the Germans were lucky to get as far as they did given the circumstances. There's also several instances during Barbarossa (Kiev being the obvious one) when German generals (Guderian being the obvious one) showed a ridiculous level of overconfidence.

You don't get that without looking out strategically and logistically.

No, what you get for not looking out strategically and logistically is a severely depleted Wehrmacht, massive logistical overstretch, and another years campaigning that you haven't anticipated or planned for.

Sure they didn't manage to topple the Russian/Soviet state with it, so it didn't end up a victory, and so that was a failure

As I said, at a higher/backend level it showed a distinct lack of thinking.

- but they launched an invasion while controlling directly or diplomatically nearly all of mainland Europe, which was a success strategically (thanks to tactically).

As I've said, the German conquest of Europe is far less impressive when you realise that the only real challenge they faced was France, in itself a lesser power and one crippled by internal problems.

At some point I wonder what kind of thinking you require to consider something good high-end. Good enough for Warsaw to Stalingrad apparently doesn't cut it, nor Bremen to Narvik, nor actually beating Russia while invading it. Is it victory alone?

I'd argue that from Kursk onwards the Soviets showed a great understanding of the strategic realities of the war. Same with the Americans in the Pacific (minus a few MacArthur blunders, though he certainly understood the political side of warfare), Montgomery in North Africa and Normandy would be another classic example. In the Italian Campaign Kesselring (and indeed, Hitler) showed a great understanding of the strategic need. Eisenhower in Northwest Europe would be another example of strong strategic-political thinking.

Again, I'm not saying the Germans were totally devoid of such practices, rather that there was a tendency to overlook the rearend necessities in favour of flashy battlefield performance.

 

[alpreb]

there are I believe a number of accounts of victorious armies succesfully routing the enemy whose drive and cohesion then falters as they start looting the enemy's encampment, and subsequently get curbstomped by a rallied enemy. I can't really think of any specific examples but they are there

Battle of Shiloh, US Civil War?

 

[DoomBunny]

Battle of Shiloh, US Civil War?

In that regard one might also add Chancellorsville and Gettysburg, both saw promising situations turn into utter failures.

 

[Easy-Kill]

I would like to nominate Napoleon's invasion of Russia. He advanced all the way to Moscow, defeating the Russian army at Smolenks and Boridino, only to be completely and utterly defeated.

 

[kis12134]

I would like to nominate Napoleon's invasion of Russia. He advanced all the way to Moscow, defeating the Russian army at Smolenks and Boridino, only to be completely and utterly defeated.

We could say the same about Barbarossa then. The Germans destroyed most of the Soviet Army but still got slowly yet consistently pushed back by a rebuilt one.

 

[Tabris01]

The Second Punic War. Hannibal goes in and crushes one Roman Army after the other, however is unable to force the Romans into a peace agreement and thus looses on the long run