rok,
I see I was mistaken there but my figures are correct and your 10,000 is an underestimate. The Poles fought hard but were overwhelmed.
In my original post I stick to the facts that Germany had the best general staff of officers, NCO's, and enlisted men at the tip of the spear they were unequaled. It is not the foot soldiers fault when the politicians in charge of strategy and achievable goals are at fault.
From the book "Victories Are Not Enough"
Despite the passage of some 60 years, German doctrinal concepts such as Auftragstaktik and examples of battles and campaigns are still studied at military educational institutions, and some are included in U.S. Army doctrinal and instructional materials. The title of Colonel T. N. Dupuy’s Book, A Genius For War ..., seems to best sum up the rationale for many military writers’ fascination with German military practices.
The fascination with German military prowess is not just a “military thing,” a fascination by soldiers about other soldiers. Indeed, serious historians, pseudo historians, and military buffs have added, seemingly weekly, to the bulk of studies on the Army fielded by the Third Reich, causing the shelves of respectable military libraries to creak from the sheer weight of these publications. The intrigue with the successes, leadership, and tactics of the German Army also has been shared by the military establishments of other nations, providing a student of German military history
The importance of national political and military leaders responsible for higher levels of strategy, developing logical and sequential plans and strategies. The first 80 years of Germany’s existence indicate that, no matter how proficient a nation’s forces are on the battlefield, if senior political and military leaders have not done solid strategic planning and have not developed achievable goals, the efforts of its military forces will likely fail to produce the desired results.
I see I was mistaken there but my figures are correct and your 10,000 is an underestimate. The Poles fought hard but were overwhelmed.
In my original post I stick to the facts that Germany had the best general staff of officers, NCO's, and enlisted men at the tip of the spear they were unequaled. It is not the foot soldiers fault when the politicians in charge of strategy and achievable goals are at fault.
From the book "Victories Are Not Enough"
Despite the passage of some 60 years, German doctrinal concepts such as Auftragstaktik and examples of battles and campaigns are still studied at military educational institutions, and some are included in U.S. Army doctrinal and instructional materials. The title of Colonel T. N. Dupuy’s Book, A Genius For War ..., seems to best sum up the rationale for many military writers’ fascination with German military practices.
The fascination with German military prowess is not just a “military thing,” a fascination by soldiers about other soldiers. Indeed, serious historians, pseudo historians, and military buffs have added, seemingly weekly, to the bulk of studies on the Army fielded by the Third Reich, causing the shelves of respectable military libraries to creak from the sheer weight of these publications. The intrigue with the successes, leadership, and tactics of the German Army also has been shared by the military establishments of other nations, providing a student of German military history
The importance of national political and military leaders responsible for higher levels of strategy, developing logical and sequential plans and strategies. The first 80 years of Germany’s existence indicate that, no matter how proficient a nation’s forces are on the battlefield, if senior political and military leaders have not done solid strategic planning and have not developed achievable goals, the efforts of its military forces will likely fail to produce the desired results.