What German Soldiers thought about Allied Soldiers — World War 2



What did the Wehrmacht Landser think about his British, Canadian or American enemy in World War II? Did the regular German Soldat think one country had better fighters than others? This video doesn’t cover French or Soviet troops. There is a portion about Field Marshal Erwin Rommel at the end of the video, for those interested.

If you enjoyed this video, then you may also like:

Battle of Gavutu and Tanambogo

Deep Battle Part II: German Surprise At Nancy

Lt. General Patton in Operation HUSKY — Sicily — Patton Series — Part 2

36 comments

  1. I went with my Grandad to a reunion/meet with German soldiers. He was Big red 1 at battle of the Bulge. A German told me that he would rather face a cornered wild animal than a cornered US soldier. A wild animal would fight you to get free. A US soldier would fight to kill you because you took away his freedom to begin with. That always stuck with me.

  2. Maybe using sheer numbers, supply line organization and superior tech/equipment to your advantage is a tactic. Maybe it's a very good tactic. The Germans seemed kind of arrogant and ignorant if you ask me.

  3. My uncle served as a Major in US Army Intelligence. He didn't really get into the fight until right after D-Day. He worked in the rear area near the front line. He told me many of the Germans he interrogated were deserters who were starving.

    My father served as a B-24 tail gunner in the European theater. After he did his 50 missions his ride back to the states was as a guard on a shipload of German POWs. My dad carried a SMG but never had to use it. He said the germans were very polite prisoners who behaved well. They still thought they were winning the war and told him so. My dad said despite their cheerful talk there was no fight left in them. They were done.

  4. It's fair to say we Americans tend to bring alot of equipment. However, I've never seen any evidence that the German and Japanese armies gave their enemies a fighting chance in the interest of fair play. They would have done it just like the U.S. did, if they had the resources, materials, and a natural protective barrier like the Atlantic…

  5. 'Germans soldiers knew American soldiers treaty their POW well ' ??????
    Really?????
    Well I suppose the dead cant complain.
    However, US General George Patten told his soldiers not to take prisoners and they dutifully obeyed him, murdering 192 German and Italian soldiers who had surrendered in Sicily. This wasn't an isolated case either. They later murdered German POWs at a concentration camp in Bavaria where Patten was in charge.
    He told all those responsible to go home with their honour in tact, they wouldn't be charged. Patton was conveniently killed after a suspicious car crash in 1946. If he had lived no doubt he would have been on trial himself for war crimes. This would have been very embarrassing for the Americans who were trying to show a humanitarian face, in contrast to the inhumanity of the Nazi thugs.

  6. Donald Sutherland? American tanks were always tied to ground troops. It’s a tad Hollywood to believe that tanks were solo out looking for tanks to engage. They were infantry support always.

  7. Atleast in ww1 & 2, them Canadian troops were our Waffen SS. Didn't murder or rape as well but the best troops in the line for the allies.

  8. As usual we forget the Australian and New Zealand Forces. Rommel was quoted saying, “if I had to take hell, I would use the Australians to take it and the New Zealanders to hold it.”

  9. Left out are Australian, kiwi, south African and Indian forces who seem to be lumbered in with British. Rommel noted the tendency of New Zealand and Australian troops to use any available resource and highly improved tactics and logistics. 1 Example being the ignoring of British orders to destroy all captured axis equipment at tobruk, Australian troops mounted italian artillery on trucks making mobile gun platforms…..also noted is (in a general sense) Americans, British, German's etc faught for country / ideology or a collective where as kiwi's and Aussies fought for their mates. Rommel noted the tenacious and extreem adaptability that Anzac, Indian and south African troops had in comparison to British.

  10. Seems some people have this quaint though admittedly cozy idea about a presumed value of "glorious" personal combat and disparage the doctrine of engaging at distance or bringing air power in and long range artillery, or seem bemused at winning "just because" you have better logistics and material.

    One should be disabused of such outmoded notions. Logistics win wars. Technology (at least in the context of symmetrical warfare) wins wars. Material wins wars. Transportation wins wars. Minimizing your losses/maximizing the enemy's wins wars.

    People can poo-poo the American contribution by affecting an attitude that they "weren't as professional" or "didn't have the same individual tenacity" and other such comments, but even were that the case (and it was not the case categorically), it's meaningless.

  11. It makes total sense that the Americans were less refined in combat compared to other countries that had spent years fighting and refining their combat techniques. They were new and were conducting on-the-job training.

  12. I don’t think some fully grasp the magnitude of sheer force the Germans endured being crushed (understatement) on both west and east fronts, the soviets statistics and sheer force of produced arms was just as ridiculously overwhelming in might as US production was and that’s often understated, the soviets Artillery barrages were a thing to behold from what I’ve read.

  13. It made sense to have the British & Canadians land at Gold, Juno and Sword Beaches, and fight along the French coast.

    They fought against direct threats to their homeland.

  14. My Great Uncle fought at Monte Casino and didn’t rate the US soldiers, but he did say they had great cotton jackets etc, when the British soldiers were still fighting in harsh wooly jackets all year round.

  15. Funny that comment about the Canadian troops.
    My family are from Sussex in South East England. Large numbers of young Canadians were based here .
    Mum told me that they would chase anything in a skirt!
    So much so that they had a terrible reputation. She added that the Canadians caused far more trouble than the Germans ever did!
    Dad told me that they had a reputation for being very aggressive and would easily take offence.
    Apparently there were several incidents in the Brighton area where the Canadians caused a lot of trouble.
    Off course part of this was because a lot of them were farm boys from Alberta etc etc. Very young ,very afraid and a long way from home.

  16. I talked with a German ww2 vet. He said they greatly defeated Canadian Soldiers. And if they knew they were going to. E fighting Canadians or was not uncommon for many German soldiers to throw up before the battle. He did not fear the US soldiers that much other than their numbers and equipment. But soldier to soldier they were not very good. He said to me you bloody Canadians. We would fire a shot at you. And you would stand up and fire two back!

  17. How grave the training situation was becoming is indicated by the report of 19 February 1941, when General Marshall was facing a new British request for 900,000,000 rounds of American-made ammunition. "We have had to reduce the amount of ammunition for training to about 60 percent" of requirements, he said to his General Council.50 He also confessed his anxieties over the Philippines defenses, and over Hawaii where "they have to be prepared against any surprise attack," to which he referred at two smaller conferences of this period.

    page 315 CHAPTER X Aid to Britain versus Rearming of America on line

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.