(Part 2) Top products from r/ShitWehraboosSay

Agreed. Lots of the WWII books from the 80's and 90's very much bought into the superior Wehrmacht narrative. Michael Reynolds "Steel Inferno: 1st SS Panzer Corps in Normandy" was one of the first "serious" books I read about Normandy and it really hit home on the "inferior" nature of Allied tanks, the superiority of training and leadership of the SS soldiers, and that the Allies prevailed through numbers. It wasn't Wehrby in the sense that the author had a hard-on for the SS, but it was part of the school of thought that developed from the 80's revisionist works like Carlo D'Este book "Decision in Normandy", which made the notion the Allies won purely through superior material and manpower central to its thesis.

My fourth year university seminar paper was on the historiography of Anglo-Canadian armor in the Battle of Normandy, and you can see how many of the Wehraboo idea's came out of the literature of the late 70's and early 80s, though they existed in more "military" circles prior to that (NATO really got off in the 50's and 60's on getting the former German commanders to give them tours so they could "learn their secrets" on how to defeat enemies with superior manpower and resources - apparently forgot these guys lost).

It wasn't until the 2000's you started to get books like John Buckley's "British Armour in the Normandy Campaign 1944" or Stephen Hart's "Montgomery and Colossal Cracks: The 21st Army Group in Northwest Europe, 1944-45" or Terry Copps "Fields of Fire: The Canadians in Normandy" the reevaluated the Anglo-Canadian performance in Normandy against the Wehrmacht and SS in a better light. I'm less familiar with the historiography of the US army in WWII.

But the stuff that Wehraboo's spout was pretty mainstream only 2-3 decades ago. That is why the History Channel stuff is so bad, since the HC stopped doing serious documentaries in the early 2000's for the most part, so what HC documentaries remains on youtube tends to reflect where the school of thought was at that time. For all intents and purposes, the stuff on this subreddit is an outgrowth of the recent round of revisionism that occured in WWII history, which is revisionism against the previous round that occured around the 80's, which itself was revisionism from the post-war works (and there are different kinds of revisionism as well, for example post war works tended to be very strategic looking where as the revisionism of the 80's brought in a lot of the ground level stuff from interviews with veterans - John Kegans work "The face of battle" was really important in starting the trend of getting the experiences of soldiers recorded in WWII history books)

Scientists under Hitler what's interesting is how Deutsch Physik has sorta become a meme here, and while it did slow down the Germans progress the American's advantage was just that they had better physicists and better facilities for doing experimental research.

https://www.amazon.com/Supplying-War-Logistics-Wallenstein-Patton/dp/0521546575

This book has a great chapter on the North Africa campaign and argues, with a massive amount of evidence from records on logistics, that Rommel never had a chance to win in North Africa.

You can read a lot of that chapter in the book preview if you're interested. Check out the conclusion to chapter 6 for a quick run down

Bob Carruthers would be the author. I'd give the book a 3/5 - it isn't bad, just your average WWII book.

https://www.amazon.com/German-Tanks-War-Bob-Carruthers/dp/0304353949

Get it from the Amazon used section for cheap if you're interested.

May I also recommend this book, which is a larger collection of transcribed conversations.

Not sure if this belongs here, but found a lovely Amazon review on "The SS: A new History" that's Wehrb at best, with hints of Holocaust denial and odd aftertaste of blaming Stalin and Churchill for the war;

https://www.amazon.co.uk/SS-New-History-Adrian-Weale/product-reviews/0349117527/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar

Snapshots:

1. the shinano is a supership! - archive.org, archive.today, removeddit.com
   
   
2. https://www.amazon.com/Shinano-Sink... - archive.org, archive.today
   
   
   
   I am just a simple bot, not a moderator of this subreddit | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers

Blitzed: Drugs in the Third Reich

http://www.amazon.de/Origins-Second-Documents-Debates-Extended/dp/0333408810/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1462742345&sr=8-6&keywords=world+war+2+victor

Easy one is Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning

https://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Men-Reserve-Battalion-Solution/dp/0060995068

Another good one is Becoming Evil by James Waller

https://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Evil-Ordinary-Genocide-Killing/dp/0195148681

BOTH of these directly address "normal" soldiers killing massive numbers of civilians. They will destroy any Wehraboo.

Also the Third Reich Trilogy by Richard Evans... Anything by Ian Kershaw.

This talking point has unfortunately been gaining ground in recent years, with Reagan's former speech writer, Patrick Buchanan writing an over 500 page book defending Nazi Germany and blaming Britain for not only WWII but also WWI. Additionally, he also claims that the West should have teamed up with Nazi Germany because Hitler "only" wanted E. Europe and that Britain should have abandoned a "warmongering, Polish dictatorship."

​

Get this and other Nazi-apologia woke truth in his recent book The Unneccessary War!

Nothing particularly good, I'm afraid. This and Wikipedia and half the internet has the M1 costing $85, but I'm not sure when that is for. Regardless, it was quite a labor intensive weapon to make, requiring significant amounts of skilled labor. By February 1944 the Thompson was supposedly down to $45, according to this and wiki.

They doth protest too much to avoid confronting Polish anti-semitism. They still get asshurt as shown in this

For the British Army in NW Europe, "Monty's Men" by John Buckley is my go to. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Montys-Men-British-Liberation-Europe/dp/0300205341

There are several which cover the entire British Army in the ETO during the war, but the issue I have with that is every British Division acted quite differently from one another and had different experiences. As Buckley notes in the above book, Monty and other British commanders wanted to primarily deploy the veterans of the North African Campaign to destroy the German formations in Normandy. This backfired with units like the 7th Armoured Division and the 51st (Highland) Division as they were so used to the open warfare in North Africa and Sicily, they took some time to adjust to the Bocage.

Schucks, it's been a while since I've read it, but Soldaten: Fighting, Killing, Dying had passages where Luftwaffe PoWs were recorded talking about strafing and bombing civilian targets. Granted, whether those instances were single malevolent individuals acting spontaneously, or said individuals acting under orders, I cannot remember.

> they could have worked out the 262s engine issues in time to make a difference.

Even if Nazi Germany made 3,000 262s, it would have not changed anything drastically. You realize the Allies had jets too right? Jets that performed on par, if not better, than the Me-262 right? The fact of the matter is they didn't put extensive amounts of money/research into them because prop planes were shooting down German jets without serious problems.

> Regardless, rocket technology, the discovery of heavy waters role in nuclear reactions, the massive leaps in propulsion and science, those aspects I would say were ahead of the Allies, and most of the allied knowledge of it came from espionage and spy work.


> but it was the things Germany had on the drawing board during the war that would shape warfare for the victor nations, such as the U-boat(copied by both the US and USSR for numerous sub designs post war) jet fighters, radio guidance etc

I'll just leave you to figure this out on your own because this is a bunch of nonsense. Paper aircraft mean absolutely fuck all. Along with anything else they "might have created". The only thing I can give you a hand on is rocket tech. Because the Nazis invested massive amounts of slave labor and money into their rocket projects. They made advancements by trial and error using slaves.

But then again, who created the first nuclear weapon? It wasn't Nazi Germany and the people who did it didn't use slave labor. Along with the fact that the Allies did not "steal Nazi tech" regarding the A-bomb. This is not a debate. This is a matter of fact.

> German Tanks were more potent but suffered from mechanical failures due to complexity and lack of maintenance supplies and trained maintenance crews by 1944. The T-34 was a great tank, but I wouldn’t say it was superior to any of the late war German tanks.

German tanks were not "more potent". I'm sure you're referring to big cats and the fact of the matter is, they were nothing spectacular. Yes they were good at killing other tanks. So what? How did that work out for them? If they were something spectacular, they would have been continued in design after the war.....which they were not. Simple as that.

> You can’t compare technology when they didn’t have the supplies to use it.

So why didn't German tech get used post war? Enlighten me.

> it’s fucking basic history.

It's well beyond that my friend. Well beyond that. I recommend some reading in your future other than the internet.

> I can’t enlighten you, your ass needs to read some books.

The irony is palpable.

Regarding the 262

This guy shot down German jets in a prop plane

Regarding "Uber Nazi Tech"

Regarding the Big Cats

I'd continue with sources but I doubt you'll even look at the ones I've listed anyways.

Good luck on your delusional endeavor.

Edited to fix a bad link.