# Wich was the worst nation in the war?



## Stuka-99 (Jun 8, 2004)

Wich was the worst nation in the war?


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 8, 2004)

france!!!!!!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 8, 2004)

Define worst. In terms of success it the war you could argue for all of the European countries in your list excluding Great Britain, Germany, and Finland. If you mean in terms of human rights, well I think the Axis countries have a strong showing there.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 9, 2004)

france


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 9, 2004)

I reckon it was france cus they had the opportunity of invaded Germany when they where attacking Poland.


----------



## rcristi (Jun 9, 2004)

As long as you posted this poll in the "Aviation" section I may think that you want to know which was the worst aviation in the war????


----------



## plan_D (Jun 9, 2004)

It wasn't only France that had the chance, it was the whole Alliance. The BEF, France, Belgium, Denmark and Holland could have all attacked Germany while Germany was in Poland. 
The German propaganda gave the good idea that the German Western Wall was impregnable, and the Allies believed it. With only a few, far stretching, recce missions into the Rheinland by the French, there was nothing by any of the Alliance members. Something of a disgrace looking back, but to them they would lose. 

And no one can really blame Britian because the Germans had sent 1.6 million into Poland but they sent 3.3 million into France in 1940. This means they still had a lot in Germany during Fall Weiss. Britain had 350,000 men at the most, the obvious minorty during Fall Gelb, since the Alliance had 3,785,000 men. 

On an aviation note, you can't really compare the smaller nations (Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Poland etc.) with the larger ones that had time to create an effective industry, and had the war to give them the challenge of getting the edge over the enemy. If you were out, you wouldn't bother. 

Also, in Fall Gelb the Allies were only just beaten in numbers of aircraft, 3, 791 Allied aircraft against 3,824 Luftwaffe.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 9, 2004)

who voted for the soviets? the soviets were an effective fighting force.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 9, 2004)

Eventually there were, but they were hardly an effective fighting force to begin with. But it wasn't me, I haven't voted. Some of the smaller countries made a very good showing considering what they had to work with. The Polish Airforce gave a rather nasty shock to the Luftwaffe.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 9, 2004)

a lot of the smaller countries seemed to have effective air forces even using poor planes


----------



## plan_D (Jun 9, 2004)

The Polish air force didn't really give a shock, they shot a few planes down but were crushed within a fortnight at best. A lot of the smaller nations were out for the count by 1940, C.C. They didn't have good air forces.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 9, 2004)

sorry, i didnt reeally made it clear. i meant they seemed to get good use out of poor planes


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 9, 2004)

I'm totally amazed at what Finland did hehe really got Stalin mad


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 9, 2004)

not a good idea.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 9, 2004)

you obviously aint seen me mad


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 9, 2004)

Ooh scary


----------



## Crazy (Jun 9, 2004)

Stuka-99 said:


> I'm totally amazed at what Finland did hehe really got Stalin mad



In my opinion, the FAF was bloody amazing. From their super-effective use of the Brewster to their interesting (and successful) bomber tactics


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 9, 2004)

They were very successful, but a lot of that success had to do with the (at least initial) weakness of the VVS.


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 10, 2004)

I mean come on Finland was amazing


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 10, 2004)

I mean come on Finland was amazing


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 10, 2004)

they sure were


----------



## luca servitto (Jun 10, 2004)

does anyone know what that plane in lightning guys signature is?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 10, 2004)

its the nose of a P-38


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 11, 2004)

i've seen you mad C.C., you ignored me for half the day, and apologised later that night...............


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 11, 2004)

I have to unfortunately go with my dear ol' Netherlands. We capitulated in 4 (  ) days!!! But then again, I think we could have fought for a bit more days or weeks, but surrender seemed a better choice. (This is what I think, the only thing I know about the fall of the Netherlands was that we used Fokker G.1's and it lasted from May 10th to May 14th  .


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 11, 2004)

Yes but holland didn't surrender as many machines men and resources as france did


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 11, 2004)

That's because we didn't have as many!


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 11, 2004)

Yeah thats why france are worst cus they surrenderd millions


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 12, 2004)

y why is it that hardly no-one replies to this poll????


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 12, 2004)

i have a habbit of not voting in polls for ages, there's tons i still havent voted in...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 12, 2004)

this is going well stuka, dont turn your nose up at the success of it 8)



> i've seen you mad C.C., you ignored me for half the day, and apologised later that night...............



well, when someone accusses you repeatedly of something you didnt do, it can get a little annoying when they dont believe you. it destroyed my self-esteem that did.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 13, 2004)

but you did do it..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 13, 2004)

you see the thing is i didnt, and thats what gets up my nose


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 14, 2004)

you can't prove you didn't, and don't just say "you can't prove i did", as the chances are stacked in my favour............


----------



## muskiet (Jun 21, 2004)

Excuse me "GERMANSAREGENIUSES"?

Sure the Netherlands was not fighting for a long time, 4 days is wimpy at best, but what is little known is that in those 4 days the Dutch used their 109 aircraft (survivors of Germans attempt to demolish the Dutch Air Force in a first surprise strike) to shoot down *328* (!) of the 1024 German aircraft!

For this the Dutch used mainly Fokker D-XXI aircraft, a handfull of (beautifull) G-1's and a lot of old, obsolete aircraft like the C-V and C-X bi-planes against the aircraft that were the Luftwaffe's finest.

No other country to date has shot down that many fighters within 4 days ever!

The fact that the Netherlands surrendered that quickly is due to the size of the country and the ignoranze of it's army's commanders. You see... they counted on the flooding of large pieces of land to stop the German tanks but they didn't even think about the bombers and transport planes flying over these pieces of land and landing troops behind them.
Also the utter destruction of The Hague (after the surrendering!) showed that the Netherlands had no other option but to surrender or the country would have been turned into a parking lot.
The Dutch were outnumbered and they knew it.

The bombing of The Hague by the way was terrible and this with the fact that Germany killed a lot of inocent (not just the Jews were mass murdered here) people just because they needed some space and low-cost factory workers makes Germany the worst country in my eyes.
Of course Japan killed more Chinese civilians than Germany killed Jews (but nobody cares about that little fact, right?) which makes them as bad as the Germans to me, but America is close behind with its mass-masacre of Tokio, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There's nothing anybody can say to make me feel good about killing 230.000 (mainly civilian) lives with first a bombing of Tokio and afterwards dropping two experiments on Hiroshima and Nagasaki just to make a point when Japan was already on brink of surrender. Of course there's Pearl Harbor, but I see that more as a tactical very clever attack (even though the Americans knew about it but forgot to mention it to the proper people so it could have been avoided) and this was after America "bullied" Japan enough to force them into a position they only saw one way out of.

Then there is Russia, a regime which was worse then Hitler's because Stalin didn't care about race or religion, he hated everybody! (both in his own and other countries). Yes it was Russia that got Germany, if Hitler didn't attack Russia Europe would still be German today but Russia accomplished this with fear, not knowledge and thinking. Kill Germany or get killed by your own commander was the thinking then. After Russia reached Berlin they occupied the countries Germany occupied before but the Allied forces were okay with that.

France is another story altogether. They had a good army and a huge country but "surrendered" (signed an armistice) in little more than a month which basically means they sold 3/5 of the country to Germany and in return the other 2/5 would be "free". The Vichy government ruling France for Germany during the occupation was composed out of most of the same people as before the war! (Petain was France's vice-premier when Germany attacked). Sounds like treason to me, but hey... the French were happy with this! Of course France was the country which in my eyes started WWII with the hard-line view on Germany after WWI.
Germany was in ruins and struggled to get back it's industries which was totally denied by the French thus forcing them to choose for the only leader that could bring them out of this missery... Adolf Hitler. Germans didn't want to kill, rape and pillage, they wanted work and prosperity like all countries desire but France took Germanies biggest industrial area (Ruhrgebied) away and didn't want to give it back untill Hitler forced them to. 

By the way... France started a lot of wars during history, even the Vietnam war (unlike the Americans they actually saw they couldn't win and bugged out leaving the mess for America to clean up, which of course failed), a fact that is not talked about much.

So who is the worst country in WWII? 

All I know GERMANSAREGENIUSES is that it certainly was not the Netherlands who was as bad as any of above countries.

Best Regards...
Dennis Verhaaff

ps... know your history!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 21, 2004)

Muskiet . . . the USN shot down more aircraft than that in one day during the Marianas Turkey Shoot.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 22, 2004)

And he blames Hollands loss on the Commanders as a scape goat. Frances loss was due to its commanders. If you've ever read the invasion from a Germans point of view and then from a French point of view you'd understand that France didn't really have much chance with commanders like that, when at the other end of the scale you've got Heinz Guderian, Rommel and Manstein commanding the German Armies. 
France wasn't a different story, you abuse France you abuse all the countries in Europe because the Allied Army out-numbered the Germans, you just seem to be expecting France to do everything.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 22, 2004)

but you have to admit that as a large country with a large empire to pull their weight a bit more..........................


----------



## muskiet (Jun 22, 2004)

*Lightning Guy*
"1944 Jun 19, The Battle of the Philippine Sea (Battle of the Marianas), called the "Marianas Turkey Shoot," began when Japanese naval forces attacked the stronger U.S. naval forces. 280 Japanese planes were shot down by U.S. carrier- based planes and anti-aircraft fire from U.S. ships. Americans shoot down 220 Japanese planes while only losing 20. 
(BEP, 1994)(DT, 6/19/97)(HN, 6/19/98)", so only 220 aircraft were shot down by other aircraft in this case. However... I've seen a lot of different reports on this and there has been numbers from over 200 to 420, so not very accurate but I do stand corrected about my earlier comment as I did say there were 328 aircraft shot down in 4 days and the US Navy did it in one single day. The Dutch Airforce did however do it with far less and far older aircraft and you must admit this is noteworthy as well. Thanx for the heads up on the Marianas Turkey Shoot!

*plan_D*
I am not a militairy thinker and when I say commanders I not only mean the Dutch Generals but also its government. My piece of writing was not a conspiracy theory trying to blame some nameless general for the occupation of the Netherlands by the Germans. *Remember*, it was the Germans attacking my country, so they are ultimately to blame. No "Rommel" or "Manstein" on the Dutch side could have stopped whatever Germany threw at them. If the Dutch put up a better fight my 150x300km country would have lasted maybe two more days resulting in the bombing of a couple more cities but nothing more than that. And for the French I am only saying that the French government started working against their own country in the early days of battle while its army was still stuck in WWI type of battle where they expected trenches and gas-grenades while the Germans threw a lot of bombing and newer tanks against the French. Ultimatly also the French would have been occupied if they fought better but that would also have been a matter of mere weeks of fighting.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 22, 2004)

I'm sorry but your look on Fall Gelb is flawed. For a start the Allied Armies could have come out victorious if they had the like of Guderian, Rommel and Manstein. The Allied Armies out-numbered the Wehrmacht, their air forces were only just inferior in number. 
The tanks that were fielded by France were also in a lot of cases superior to their German counter-parts. The Samoa S.35 was a clearly superior tank, and the best tank on the field. If there were enough Matilda Mk. II for the BEF with enough ammo they would have caused some major problems with their invunerable armour. 

The Allied Army COULD have won had it allowed the bright thinkers to be in charge of the defence. No one get the idea that Britain and France were behind in tactics, there were people who knew about Modern warfare but were not allowed to take over. Guderian in Germany had a hard enough time with his country. 

The tactics were the thing that lost the Allies Continental Europe in 1940. The BEF being 350,000 not having much chance to change the course of events. 

A flawed military thinker is something to blame, but you blame them all.


----------



## Maestro (Jun 22, 2004)

muskiet said:


> Excuse me "GERMANSAREGENIUSES"?
> 
> Sure the Netherlands was not fighting for a long time, 4 days is wimpy at best, but what is little known is that in those 4 days the Dutch used their 109 aircraft (survivors of Germans attempt to demolish the Dutch Air Force in a first surprise strike) to shoot down *328* (!) of the 1024 German aircraft!
> 
> ...



Something bugged me in your post, Muskiet.

You seems to talk like if the civilans lives could have been spared during Allied attacks. Think about all major attacks. If the USAAF wouldn't had A-bombed Japan, *many* Allied soldiers would have died, may be much more than 230,000 loses. Because the war would have lasted may be one or two more years. The Japanese Empire was not weak when USAAF A-bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Sometimes, armies *MUST* destroy city. Think about Operation Overlord. If the RAF and RCAF never had bombed Caen in July 1944, the city would have never been taken. I mean, the Britishs and Canadians tried to take the city _intact_ from June 6th 1944 to somewhere around July 17th 1944. They were able to take a part of Caen, but they realised they would never take it completely without air support. So they bombed the part of the city that was not under Allied control.

Before June 6th 1944, the RAF, USAAF and RCAF bombed many city like Le Havre, Cherbourg, Coutances, St-Lô, Vire... But those bombings were needed. Mainly because that street fightings are very deadly to both sides... and civilans die anyway. So bombing cities is smarter.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 22, 2004)

I once wrote a paper in school on the decision to drop the atomic weapons on Japan. It is my firm belief that individuals who claim Japan could have been successfully invaded with as little as 100,000 casualties must be smoking something. Early battles (like Okinawa and Iwo Jima) had required inflicting something like 95% casualties on the Japanese defenders. The Japanese military still had aproximately 4 million in its ranks in Aug. 1945. A little easy number crunching suggests that Japanese MILITARY fatalities would have run into the millions (not to mention civilian and Allied losses).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 23, 2004)

i believe it was right to drop the A-bombs, primarily for the reasons you've mentioned, however i hope they're never needed again...................


----------



## Maestro (Jun 23, 2004)

For once, we agree on one point, LG. Nobody (even the US army) could invade Japan without _VERY HEAVY_ losses.

And like you Lanc, I hope A-bombs won't be needed again. What I said is that sometimes, destroying important cities (with or without A-bombs) is the lone way to win.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 23, 2004)

i take it you mean one way to win?? becuase you can't win just by bombing a city, you'll have to invade it too.......................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 23, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> Muskiet . . . the USN shot down more aircraft than that in one day during the Marianas Turkey Shoot.



Ahem, _*Great*_ Marianas Turkey Shoot...


----------



## Maestro (Jun 23, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i take it you mean one way to win?? becuase you can't win just by bombing a city, you'll have to invade it too.......................



Yeah, that's what I meant.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 23, 2004)

muskiet said:


> Excuse me "GERMANSAREGENIUSES"?
> 
> Sure the Netherlands was not fighting for a long time, 4 days is wimpy at best, but what is little known is that in those 4 days the Dutch used their 109 aircraft (survivors of Germans attempt to demolish the Dutch Air Force in a first surprise strike) to shoot down *328* (!) of the 1024 German aircraft!
> 
> ...



Look, I'm Dutch too, I just research the Germans! Anywho, we got our language from them~with changes, of course. I research WWII through many means, but it is impossible to do it all in a short period of time! I simply haven't gotten round to the Netherlands and didn't know any of that stuff (other than the fact that the G.1 was beautiful, among other things...). Also, I'm more Brasileiro than Dutch (My grandpa was the only Dutch in me family as far as I know, rest is Brasileiro~1/8th). I have a question, if we capitulated in Mau of 1940, how were we fighting the Japs in 1941? (If I'm wrong on the date, then the book had a typo...) I mean, we were forced to ally with Germany and Germany was allied with Japan. In other words, how were we fighting our own ally? Did Germany allow? Or was it just a typo?


----------



## Maestro (Jun 23, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> Look, I'm Dutch too, I just research the Germans! Anywho, we got our language from them~with changes, of course. I research WWII through many means, but it is impossible to do it all in a short period of time! I simply haven't gotten round to the Netherlands and didn't know any of that stuff (other than the fact that the G.1 was beautiful, among other things...). Also, I'm more Brasileiro than Dutch (My grandpa was the only Dutch in me family as far as I know, rest is Brasileiro~1/8th). I have a question, if we capitulated in Mau of 1940, how were we fighting the Japs in 1941? (If I'm wrong on the date, then the book had a typo...) I mean, we were forced to ally with Germany and Germany was allied with Japan. In other words, how were we fighting our own ally? Did Germany allow? Or was it just a typo?



May be they were "rebel" soldiers... Just like Free French Forces during D-Day, at Sword Beach who landed with the British No. 4 Commando. The FFF unit was called the No. 10 Commando.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 23, 2004)

Nah, they were Dutch East Indies forces, same markings on the aircrafts and everything. Obviously, they probably weren't led by the government, but they WERE official.


----------



## Maestro (Jun 23, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> Nah, they were Dutch East Indies forces, same markings on the aircrafts and everything. Obviously, they probably weren't led by the government, but they WERE official.



No. 10 Commando was official too. Go to http://www.dday.co.uk/ and click on the "Ouistreham" link. They talk about the No. 10 and No. 4 Commando units. I don't know a lot about the Dutch East Indies Forces, but it looks quite the same than Free French Forces to me...


----------



## plan_D (Jun 23, 2004)

You've got the right idea Germans. They were Dutch national military personel but were not under the control of the home Dutch government when it captiulated. It was under the Dutch East Indies control, and I think under over-all command of the British or Americans.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 24, 2004)

Cool 8) At least we were doing SOMETHING.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 24, 2004)

The Dutch had 3 Cruisers, 7 Destroyers and 15 Submarines in the pacific.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 24, 2004)

Most of which, I believe were sunk. The early going against the IJN was very rough and any sort of night battle into 1943 was most likely going to come out in favor of the Japanese.


----------



## muskiet (Jun 26, 2004)

The Dutch government and its Royalty fled to the United Kingdom from where they led the remaining Dutch forces including the ones in the Dutch Indies. Okay... those were largely on their own because the government in exile had bigger fish to fry, but they had at least leaders in the United Kingdom. The Dutch even had their "own" Spitfire squadron (167) first based in Castle Town to defend the navy base Scapa Flow and afterwards flying defense for air to ground missions from Ludham airforce base. In 1943 it became the 322 squadron of the Royal Dutch Air Force (even though only 8 of the 25 pilots were Dutch).

It's interesting to know that the biggest supporter to the remaining Dutch forces and the one that made the Dutch Spitfire squadron possible was Prince Bernhard who himself was German. This was a German who was the Commander of Dutch troops trying to free The Netherlands from Germans.


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jul 14, 2004)

So in other words we english are your best friends


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jul 14, 2004)

like my spitfire? besides the germans, italians,japanese weren't the real enemy it was fascism thee real enemy....


----------



## plan_D (Jul 14, 2004)

The rest of Europe seems to fail what Britain has done for them in the past. But it's their opinions, it's not my place to try and defend or uphold the actions of past generations.


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jul 15, 2004)

Too true plan_D I reckon most of europe are pretty ignorant because, come on if we wanted to we could have made a pact with axis and it would have probably meant that we would be a Superpower and the US woulld have probably joined the axis as well....(The only European nation that appreciated what we did were the dutch I mean the german people apreciated us more than the french who let the axis walk all over them....)


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 15, 2004)

Agree that what Britain did for Europe/democracies is a little underappreciated...

There were quite a lot of people within Britain--including the government--that were inclined to make peace with Hitler, weren't there, in 1940 after Dunkirk? Hitler certainly wouldn't have minded.

This would not have lead to Britain becoming a superpower though, I don't think, because the Empire was close to bankrupt at the end of the thirties anyway...

I imagine Europe + Russia would end up as a single totalarian block, either Stalinist or Fascist, with England perched impotently on the edge and the US increasingly isolationist and turned away from the Rest of the World--until, presumambly, the Japanese attacked, which they wouldn't if Russia won in Europe.

It would have been a scary world if the Battle of Britain hadn't been fought and won.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 15, 2004)

If Britain had of joined Germany they would have become great allies. The British Empire was still a force to be reckoned with and being Allied with Germany would have negated any threat from Japan to Burma and India which was British terrority. 

I think the combined efforts of Germany, Britain and Japan could have crushed the Soviet Union. We will never know though, will we. 

America would have had no choice but to stay out, it couldn't have waged an effective war over the Atlantic and it's Navy wouldn't have been much help as it would have had the three most powerful Navies in the world against it. IJN, RN and Kriegsmarine would have easily ruled the oceans.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 15, 2004)

Would Britain have actively _joined_ Germany, or would it have stood on the sidelines, like, say, Spain ended up doing?

I still see the continent a single totalitarian bloc, with Britain more or less independent, protected by the navy but impotent otherwise. Certainly I don't see her fighting the Soviet Union alongside Hitler, though if certain politicians had had their way, it could have happened.

Either way, I agree America would have been out of it, and would be hardly likely to unilaterally declare war against Soviet Europe/Nazi Europe and then project enough force to win it. It would be a Cold War, but without any democracies in Western Europe...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 15, 2004)

Great Britain allying with Hitler is the craziest 'What if' I have heard on this site. Churchill, afterall, did coin the phrase, "You can always take one with you."


----------



## plan_D (Jul 15, 2004)

Churchill wasn't in power in 1939 though, LG. Any What If is crazy, but there were people in Britain willing to join Hitler. 400,000 Black Shirts, for a start.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 15, 2004)

It would certainly be very unlikely, but not inconceivable.

Unfortunately, there was a lot of symphathy in Britain for Germany, especially amongst certain clueless nobility. There was a sense that Germans were ethnic/cultural cousins, and that they had been very hard done by by the Versailles treaty. This group sort of represented a kind of old-fashioned, Jerry's-not-a-bad-bloke, all-that-mess-at-the-end-of-the-Great-War-was-a-bit-unsporting, eh old boy, yes, rather kind of out-of-date thinking. They had no clue about Fascism and what dangers it posed. In many ways, Churchill had to drag the country into the war over some fairly serious opposition.

Of course, once it did got started, people rallied around Churchill and got on with it, as it were.

Weird historical footnote: PG Wodehouse, quintessential Englander, broadcast German propaganda from Holland (I think) during the war.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 15, 2004)

Just one thing, the Jerry isn't a bad bloke continued through World War 2 and into to the present day. Germany and Britain have always respected one another, and we are race cousins. But war is war.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 16, 2004)

Yes, absolutely. I didn't want to imply that it was necessary for the British to start hating Germans to fight the war--just that in some quarters sympathy for the country blinded people to the dangers of its government.


----------



## Maestro (Jul 16, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> Great Britain allying with Hitler is the craziest 'What if' I have heard on this site. Churchill, afterall, did coin the phrase, "You can always take one with you."



Yeah, we're lucky that Churchill got elected before/during WW II. Because what I heard in my "History of the 20th century" course was that his predecessor was a kind of "pacifist" (here, we call them "un hosse sans couilles" or "a guts-less man", translated in English).

I always liked Churchill. This man was a true warrior.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 16, 2004)

I wouldn't say he was a true warrior. He was a good speaker, but he messed up a lot of things for Britain, not only in World War 2 but in World War 1 as well. Gallipolli (1915) was Churchills mistake. 

He was much better than Neville Chamberlain, the pacifist who let the war get into 1940 when it could have been ended in 1939.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 16, 2004)

but he learnt from Gallipolli............................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 16, 2004)

My point in citing Churchill is that he was representative of the majority of people in Great Britain. A further thing I wonder about is, if the British had been such pacifist that they sued for peace with Germany, would they have been agressive enough to openly engage in war?


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 16, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> (snip) A further thing I wonder about is, if the British had been such pacifist that they sued for peace with Germany, would they have been agressive enough to openly engage in war?



Re-thinking it, my point about the pro-German lobby is perhaps moot. I reckon LG's observation is dead on. Pacifists (not pro-Germans) would have forced the peace, and they surely wouldn't want to then go invading Russia or anything like that...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 16, 2004)

A lot of people were pro-German in Britain. Add them to the pacifists and you've got a lot of people willing to hold off war with Germany. If any form of treaty, maybe a mutual protection act, was signed with Germany. Britain would have proudly fought by Germanys side. 

Britain could have waged open war against the Germans. The BEF was nothing near the full Army at the time, and the German Western Wall was nothing capable of stopping the British Army (in full strength) in 1939. 
If Britain, as they had in Norway, attacked Germany itself in 1939. Of course making sure the BEF was properly supplied and equipped, World War 2 could have been a few weeks long.


----------



## Maestro (Jul 16, 2004)

plan_D said:


> A lot of people were pro-German in Britain. Add them to the pacifists and you've got a lot of people willing to hold off war with Germany. If any form of treaty, maybe a mutual protection act, was signed with Germany. Britain would have proudly fought by Germanys side.



A lot of poeples were Pro-German ANYWHERE !

I heard about some brown-shirts in Québec in 1939 and of a Waffen SS Division in Alberta.

I also heard about peoples in US willing to join Germany.

And (as everyone knows) French that "sold" Jewish or RAF/RCAF/USAAF ejected pilots to Germans.

However, I'm glad that they were only minorities.


----------



## Dan (Jul 16, 2004)

well what i can say is that the italians weren't so good cuz the're planes were quite easy to shoot down and they only served in the north African theater from what i know


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 17, 2004)

even there they weren't much good.......................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 17, 2004)

The Italians served in France, North Africa, Italy, Balkans and Russia.


----------



## Schrage Muzik (Jul 17, 2004)

dead parrot said:


> There was a sense that Germans were ethnic/cultural cousins, and that they had been very hard done by by the Versailles treaty. This group sort of represented a kind of old-fashioned, Jerry's-not-a-bad-bloke, all-that-mess-at-the-end-of-the-Great-War-was-a-bit-unsporting, eh old boy, yes, rather kind of out-of-date thinking.



Which would be correct. The Germans were hard-hit by the treaty of versailles, and, some how I doubt that the Nazi party would have even been taken seriously if everyone was a bit more charitable at the end of the Great War.

The fly in the ointment was the fact that this group you mentioned had no idea what hitler was actually up to.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 17, 2004)

There's more to the ending of the Great War leaving a bitter taste in Germans mouths than the Versailles Diktat. The fact that the British and French allowed the German troops go home with weapons, and their regimental colours without any form of occupation meant that the German nation didn't believe it had been beaten only betrayed. 

And that's one reason why the blame the Jews and Communists idea went down so well within Germany.


----------



## trackend (Jul 18, 2004)

HI guys im still not sure after reading all the posted articals what the original question was is it the nation that put on the worst show in which case there are many none of which appear in your list as I have always felt that it was those nations that did nothing but had a free ride on the backs of those who fought for freedom ( I dont think Adolf would have been content withjust an empire from Europe too the Japanese imperial conquests ) I include most of the African continent and South America, Switzland ect . Or is it the worst fight put up by a nation in which case id say Belgium .Or is it the worst as a fighting force The Italian Mountain troops where superb and the same can be said of their Miarley (chariot) divers so in terms of an army again i pick the Belgiums . Or is it purely the worst nation as war mongers then i pick the Japanese a nation that claimed to be honourable and had no honour what so ever, never mind Knights of the Bushido, from the invasion of China through the rape of Nankin and the death marches too their final surrender and even up to today they have never admitted their wrong doings not my most favorite people. (bet that causes a few comments)  PS if the A-bombs had not been dropped the deaths amongst the civil population in an allied invasion would have run into millions.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2004)

I would have to agree with France. I am sorry but they completely squandered any chance of stopping the Germans. With Blitzkrieg who would have thought the magino line would have stoped the Germans? The Germans were not that stupid in the first place they just went around. The French and many of the Allies were expecting a war like WWI fought in trenches. And when the Germans took them by suprise they just tucked there tails and ran.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 24, 2004)

Who voted US?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2004)

Whoever did is out of there mind. The war would have been hard to win without them.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 25, 2004)

Yup.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

How do you think the war would have turned out had the US never entered the war?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

Well we would have had to produce a lot more planes, tanks etc, meaning we would have run out of resources quicker. I still think we would have won but it would have been a lot longer and a lot more difficult. But thats only if the Japs werent in the war at all. If they attacked us too I think we'd have been done for.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 26, 2004)

i don't see how the hell japan are gonna attak us?? and we wouldn't have run out of resorses because america would still help us out.............


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 26, 2004)

Lanc, they're imagining what would happen if American WAS NOT in the war. At all. No help. No Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

Thankyou. Well the Japs could stick a navy fleet in the Atlantic for a start lanc....


----------



## Maestro (Nov 26, 2004)

And don't forget your colonies (India, Australia...). You had to defend them too and they were closer from Japan.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2004)

how you gonna get the japs into the atlantic?? the amercans had allot of naval power around the panama canal and their ships proberly wouldn't fit anyway, which means either crossing the pacific, around south america and up through both atlantic oceans, or through the indain ocean, which means passing near to australia.............



> Lanc, they're imagining what would happen if American WAS NOT in the war



they helped us out when they were not in the war.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

CANT YOU READ!?!?! WERE TALKING ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF THEY WERENT THERE AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2004)

but before 1941 they weren't in the war at all but they still helped us!!!

BTW i know the point you're making, i just being akward 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

Just being Kerry more like, you'd make a great couple you know...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2004)

funny, i dont think her boyfriend would agree................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

me neither


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2004)

actually i don't agree for that matter.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

No, It wouldnt do Kerry's image much good..


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2004)

well i could think of plenty more people i'd much rather go out with, i don't really fink kerry that attractive................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

No she isnt, god knows why I fancied her...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2004)

you fancied her


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Back in year 7, everyone knew that...


----------



## kiwimac (Nov 28, 2004)

Albania!


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 29, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> No she isnt, god knows why I fancied her...



 Oooooooooooooooooooooooooo


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2004)




----------



## kiwimac (Nov 29, 2004)

Still Albania!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2004)

Were Albania even in the war?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 29, 2004)

i dunno!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2004)

Nowt new there then


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 30, 2004)

i've checked and i don't think they were, here's what i've got

Allies:
Australia
Belgium
Britian
Canada
China
Denmark
France
Greece
Netherlands
New Zeland
Norway
Poland
Russia
South Africa
United States of America
Yugoslavia

Axis:
Bulgaria
Finland 
Germany
Hungary 
Italy
Japan
Romania


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 30, 2004)

With Belgium and France on our side no wonder we won


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 1, 2004)

hey hey hey remember Belgium managed to hold out for the same legth of time as france!! and the Belgiums stil made a sacrifice during the war, which should never be forgotten.......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 1, 2004)

I know...


----------



## kiwimac (Dec 2, 2004)

Albania fought on the Allied side under Enver Hoxha. Hoxha was a staunchly Stalinist Communist when his troops weren't fighting the Germans' or King Zog's loyal troops, they were squabbling with Yugoslavia's Titoist Communists.



Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 3, 2004)

wow, didn't know that, thanks...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 3, 2004)

Come to think of it I read something about Albania being bombed the other day but I didnt think it was during WW2.


----------



## kiwimac (Dec 4, 2004)

Maybe I'll write an ebook entitled "Kiwimac's potted History of the world : for potty people!"

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)




----------



## Cheap Labour (Dec 4, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> not a good idea.....................



Why the hell not? He's dead!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)

Huh?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 5, 2004)

that must have been from like the beggining of the topic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2004)

> Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 5:01 pm Post subject:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> not a good idea.....................



Hell yeah


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 5, 2004)

bloody hell


----------



## Cheap Labour (Dec 6, 2004)

I couldn't resist.


----------



## Karaya_1 (Dec 6, 2004)

I vote for Russia (belonging to family history  ) !


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 6, 2004)

Did you have a grandfather or something who fought the Russians then?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 6, 2004)

he's from germany so i'm gonna assume he does..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 6, 2004)

Yeah thats why I typed it...if he was British then id be a bit confused...

He probably wont answer me cos I have a Soviet flag


----------



## Karaya_1 (Dec 7, 2004)

Yes, that flag is a little bit confusing... . No, my grandpa was defending Norway against the British Invaders, hehehe...
I mean that my family was dispelled by the Russians from Upper Silesia and their experiences were not the best.....don't misunderstand me, I don't have any problems with Russians or Polish today, but when you hear the stories of my parents or other relatives, you get the feeling, that the Germans were not the only bad people during the war....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

They werent, the Russians were nearly as bad themselves...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 7, 2004)

but atleast the russians kept most of their war crimes to combattants.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

But they enslaved civilians...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 8, 2004)

i said most...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 8, 2004)

But it wasnt most, they enslaved A LOT of civilians...


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 14, 2004)

It's hard to say who was the worst - The Japenese were excedingly cruel both to combattants and to civilians. It is reported that 250,00 Chinese were excuted for knowledge of/help to the Dolittle raid and that was the tip of it. 
The Germans tried to wipe out an entire ethnic group and tried to wipe out the commies.

Russia would send political prisioners in large groups (it's said this total could millions) without wepons ahead of their armies into combat to wast the Germans amo. The totals of people sacrificed/worked to death is said to be over 20 million.  

What's the definition of bad?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 14, 2004)

Actually, that 20 million includes deaths in combat. Of soldiers, that is number of Russians who died, in any war-related way...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 15, 2004)

wmaxt said:


> It's hard to say who was the worst - The Japenese were excedingly cruel both to combattants and to civilians. It is reported that 250,00 Chinese were excuted for knowledge of/help to the Dolittle raid and that was the tip of it.
> The Germans tried to wipe out an entire ethnic group and tried to wipe out the commies.
> 
> Russia would send political prisioners in large groups (it's said this total could millions) without wepons ahead of their armies into combat to wast the Germans amo. The totals of people sacrificed/worked to death is said to be over 20 million.
> ...



that's a very good point very well made, well done that man =D>


----------



## Darkstalker (Jan 13, 2005)

Almost any nation in that war committed crimes or actions that are considered not admitables.
Like the British bombing schedules. They started indiscriminated bombings over the civilian population over Germany and the occupied territories at the beginning of the war because it was difficult for the pilots to cause heavy damage on the military facilities.
In that time, the luftwaffe forbidded full scale bombings including civilian population like the allies were used to.
Also we had to remember that this politics were used only for the western european countries like france or U.K. In the east this was not forbidden.


----------



## Darkstalker (Jan 13, 2005)

In the American continent were cases where the populations of the axis countries that were living in "neutral" or allied countries were confined in concetration camps,and were bothered or attacked in public places.
In other places the governments expropiated axis' properties that were in those countries when the war broke, like ships, buildings or money. And deported or sended to jail the owners of the properties.


----------



## Darkstalker (Jan 13, 2005)

In some times this expropiated properties were used against the axis, like the planes or were used to support allied countries when selling, dismanteling or organizing ship convoys to cross the atlantic that were sunk by german u-boats.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

RAF bombing of German cities didn't start until late 1940, after the BoB, after the Blitz. Every country in World War 2 commited a war crime, Poland were one of the first by slaughtering thousands of ethnic Germans in Poland.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2005)

Wow going by this poll, the Romanians and the Greek were as good as the Uk during the war...


----------



## Kongo Otto (Jan 29, 2005)

plan_D said:


> It wasn't only France that had the chance, it was the whole Alliance. The BEF, France, Belgium, Denmark and Holland could have all attacked Germany while Germany was in Poland.



Holland was a neutral state,teh same way like switzerland.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 29, 2005)

I haven't heard this before. What happened was that the Dutch government ordered its army to stand down, to avoid loss of life. Although some refused and still fought, doesn't make them a neutral state.


----------



## Archangel (Feb 17, 2005)

i think one of the worst things done in ww2 was the flare bombing on berlin. i dont know what year it was, but the allied bombers who attacked berlin that night didnt throw bombs, but flares (or how they are called. it were sticks you could set on fire, so you could c where you were dropping the bombs)
the whoule city was on fire, and very much people died an very painfull death.

and no plan_D, you dont need to reply on any misspellings here >.<


----------



## evangilder (Feb 17, 2005)

Archangel, are you thinking of the Dresden firebombings, perhaps?


----------



## Archangel (Feb 17, 2005)

yes,... but as far as i know its also done on berlin.. maybe not that big as in drehsten,.. but as far as i know, that action was iven a name, called "Berlinieren" 

but thats what ive heard


----------



## evangilder (Feb 17, 2005)

I am not familiar with any Berlin firebombing raids, but there may have been some. Dresden was a horrible mess. Unfortunately, it is a part of war. Hopefully, that kind of thing won't have to happen again.

The Tokyo firebombing raids killed more than the nukes on Hiroshima. Robert Morgan's biography talks about them. He flew the Memphis Belle, and after he came back for the war bonds drive, he flew B-29s in the Pacific. He said that as they flew over Tokyo, they could smell the burning bodies. I shudder to think of the horror of the firestorm.


----------



## Archangel (Feb 17, 2005)

yes.. but the worst thing is that the people couldnt stay at home, cuz theyr homme was burning, but the also couldnt get out because the asphalt on the street melted cuz of the heat.
that are raids who may not happen again.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Wasnt it the 60th anniversary of Dresden the other day?


----------



## evangilder (Feb 17, 2005)

Yup. Alot of big anniversaries this year. I will be presenting at the museum this weekend about Iwo Jima (60th anniversary of the start of that battle is this saturday) and the F4U Corsair. We are expecting a crowd of about 100! They just get bigger and bigger.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Rather you than me!


----------



## evangilder (Feb 17, 2005)

I actually love it. I get to talk about one of my favorite subjects (besides myself, NS!) and the audience is receptive. The word is getting around and they get bigger and bigger. I gave my first presentation in September to a whopping total of 7 people! Last month it was about 50. If I try to talk about this stuff to my wife, she glazes over and just ignores me!  When I present, people are there to hear and learn. If they want to listen, I am more than willing to talk. Of course, years of being in bands has taken the stage-fright out of me.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

I suppose that helps. In all honesty I cant stand talking to an audience!


----------



## evangilder (Feb 17, 2005)

I will admit though that sometimes I get a little nervous at first. Once I get started though, I am fine. I once read that Steven Tyler throws up before every show! You would think a guy like that would be well beyond the jitters!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

I wouldnt think that, mainly cos I have no idea who that is


----------



## evangilder (Feb 17, 2005)

Steven Tyler is the singer in Aerosmith.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Feb 17, 2005)

Err, I wonder why people voted for France, 'cause just look at the time it took to take over Denmark: 24hrs!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 18, 2005)

Maybe so, but why do the USA have 5 votes? Its stupid, should be on Zero.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 18, 2005)

america wasn't perfect you know.........


----------



## trackend (Feb 19, 2005)

Adolf Galland said:


> err i wonder why ppl voted 4 France, cuz just look at the time it took to take over Denmark: 24hrs!!



Perhaps it was the Vichy aspect that people are remembering 
I mean talk about crap on your allies they wouldn't even bring over their navy so we had to sink it, Maurice Gamelin (the French commander) whose command center never even had communictions and messages where sent out by dispatch ride, 
He completely missed the plot and perhaps was one of the prime movers in the rapid demise of France he was drawing halt lines on maps that had already been over run.
so maybe this is the reason some people voted for France. 
For a nation with 900,000 men at arms they put up a really poor show, thats not to say I voted for them I still feel it was the Nations that did nothing and stayed neutral that have the most to answer for.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 19, 2005)

You raise a good point trackend. The Swiss, while claiming neutrality were warehousing the looted Nazi gold and laundering the money. They certainly are not without some guilt.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 19, 2005)

no country is without guilt..............


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 19, 2005)

I agree, lanc. Everyone has certain skeletons in their closets.


----------



## P51ace 16 (Feb 19, 2005)

Those French Cowards  we had to sink their navy just to keep the germans from using it


----------



## P51ace 16 (Feb 19, 2005)




----------



## trackend (Feb 19, 2005)

I think it's more than a skeleton more a graveyard filled with the bodies of 45,000,000 victims


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 19, 2005)

Yeah, that's a lot of skeletons. Switzerland should definitely be on that list. For that matter, Sweden too.


----------



## trackend (Feb 19, 2005)

Bloody right on skimmer


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2005)

I can add them 2, if you wish?


----------



## trackend (Feb 19, 2005)

no cheesy mate they aint worth it


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2005)




----------



## hellmaker (Mar 23, 2005)

What does this mean??? By which standards??? Why France... Because it had the badluck of being the first country to surrender??? It was completely cought off guard...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 23, 2005)

I dont know..just the worst nation overall.

Surrending is to the French what CO2 is to plant life - Compulsary.


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 23, 2005)

Denmark, didn't even resist and where occupied in 24 hours as already has been said.


----------



## HealzDevo (May 24, 2005)

I would say Italy, the Italian troops hardly ever came close to winning a battle that I know about with an equal power. They needed German Officers to provide them with leadership to encourage them to fight. They were repelled by Greece and other places. In the end, they gave up to the Allies, and the Germans had to occupy them to tie down the Allied troops, freed-up by Italy's potential surrender. Germany really did have some Allies in WW2 she could really potentially have done without, such as Italy. Italy thankfully was a sap on German strength rather than a multiplier.


----------



## plan_D (May 24, 2005)

France wasn't the first country to surrender. The French military however was the second largest force in Europe behind the Red Army. They had nearing 1.5 million men, 800,000 of which stood on the ''Shield of France" (Maginot Line). 

They lacked any kind of knowledge on armoured and mobilised warfare. The BEF was not on the continent to be a holding force, yet France accuses Britain of selfishness for not staying. 

On top of that, France did not hand over the French Navy to the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy was forced to destroy the French Navy, which the French still are bitter about when they were in the wrong!

The French Resistance is often given credit for a lot of destruction and disruption when in reality, they were only an information gathering organisation and not even a good one at that. 

The French resistance is extremely over-rated, in my opinion.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2005)

I think ill agree with Gnomey that Denmark were the worst.


----------



## plan_D (May 24, 2005)

I don't blame them. They weren't in any state of oppose Germany. Why waste the lives of your people for a lost cause? So people 60 years on can say, "They fought, thousands died, but at least they fought"?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2005)

Well it has been a while since this was posted. Im with France. They had the ability to stop the Germans and were cowards.

Now something that surprises me is the the number of votes for Germany and the United States. 

For Germany not talking polotics there military was far from the worst. They had one of the most powerful militaries the world had ever seen. They just did not take advantage of things they should have due to polotical interfearence.

For the United States they started off bad but soon the world saw the most powerful military the world has ever seen rise out of the ashes of Pearl Harbor. Economically no one could compete and they came out one of the worlds Super Powers.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 12, 2005)

Germany, I'd say, had the most powerful military right up until the dying days. They managed to hold off the world for a good 6 years, you cannot fault that military!

The U.S had the most powerful economy, no doubt about that.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 12, 2005)

No, you absolutely can't knock Germany's military might. Like you say D, it took the combined forces of more than a half-dozen countries six long years to defeat them.

Although the Soviets did manage to produce a sh*t load of stuff once they got going, there was no beating the US for overall production in terms of both quantity and general quality combined. That's one hell of an industrial base.


----------



## Glider (Aug 12, 2005)

France without any question


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2005)

I agree I am for France.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 22, 2005)

Me too. And according to the poll Greece is the best nation.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 30, 2005)

HUH?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 31, 2005)

Greece has the least votes for worst nation, making it the best nation.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 31, 2005)

Greece has the least votes for worst nation, making it the best nation.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 1, 2005)

Double post there?

Yeah I see that now. I guess Greece really did not have a chance but they sure did kick the shit out of the Italians.


----------



## mosquitoman (Sep 2, 2005)

Until the Italians said "help help those nasty Greeks are beating us, could you send me some help please Hitler?"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 3, 2005)

Yeap which is most likely what cost Hitler Russia.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 3, 2005)

If so, then you gotta love the Italians.


----------



## elmilitaro (Sep 3, 2005)

France was the worst country preoared for war ever!!!

We had to rescue them once during WW1 because the Germans were driving them back into Paris. We entered and beat Germany, end of story.

But was that enough for the French, oh nooo, when they entered WW2 they were ill-prepared with outclassed everything. Also their famous Maginot Line, only covered the French Forest. We thought the French were going to fight like they did in WW1, but loss in 4 weeks!! After this, the British were left to fight alone, but they didn't give up even after constant night-bombing and from the German submarines blew up cargo from the US. Under the great leadership from great officers and the intelligence of Prime Minister Winston Churchill they fought out the Germans. Finally we entered to help out the British who had a heavy burden on their shoulders. When these 2 great countries came together, we beat the Germans and won WW2.

If that wasn't enough the French were fighting the people from their rebelling colony, the Vietnamese. And again (like always) the french loss. But wait that's not the dissapointing part, here it comes, they loss to people that were under-armed, under-supplied, and determined!!! We entered which caused the Vietnam war and well ya'll know what happened.

So the French are, back then, the worst and ill-prepared nation to go to war ever, after WW1 of course. Thank ya'll for ya'll time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 4, 2005)

Oh boy here you go, you just opened up a pandora's box by saying the British and the French were not going to be able to defeat the Germans in WW1 on there own. The British guys here are going to open up on you.....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 4, 2005)

And I've gotta throw in my usual part about all the "little" nations of the Commonwealth. I.E. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, blah-blah-blah-blah...
We were part of the British Empire yes, but we were distinct, self-governing countries and _hated_ to be called simply British. 

Seriously though, it's actually perfectly understandable why we would have been considered so, especially during WWI, but I just like to be difficult when I can.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 4, 2005)

And yes you can be very difficult some times.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 4, 2005)

...No wait, I mean: ...No, I uh...Oh hell, I don't know what I mean.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 4, 2005)

Neither do we...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 4, 2005)

> We had to rescue them once during WW1 because the Germans were driving them back into Paris. We entered and beat Germany, end of story.



dude, you entered WWI in the 4th year of the war, that's not a rescue, we could've beaten them anyway we were superior in skill and numbers for most of your involvement in the war...........



> When these 2 great countries came together, we beat the Germans and won WW2.



whilst we were the two largest allied powers in WWII, it's important to remember there were other people, like the british colony across the pond


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 4, 2005)

Thank you. 
I _am_ joking, you realize that don't you? I certainly wouldn't expect Canada to be mentioned all the time. Only where applicable.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2005)

I am just surpised that Lanc is the only one that let him have it so far. I have to agree with Lanc though.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 5, 2005)

Oh, I agree with lanc too. The USA's help in WWI was a tremendous asset, don't get me wrong, but they didn't exactly save the Empire.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 5, 2005)

The introduction of the tank was the war winner in World War I, not the U.S. The American troops had to be trained by the French and British before even being allowed into the lines. The Germans were on their last legs after the British and French realised how to use tanks effectively at Cambrai. The German forces had no effective anti-tank defence and it wasn't long until the tanks were soon back on the field at Amiens, which the New Zealanders led. The tank won World War 1, end of story. 

Pre-World War II the French were going backward in military doctrine. They were out-classed tactically by Germany but not technically. The French forces had some of the best tanks in the world, superior to their German counter-parts. And Germany invaded France on May 10th, France surrendered on June 22nd - that's six weeks not four. 

Don't forget the Soviet Unions massive contribution to the war effort. It wasn't just the U.S and Britain. 

It was the rebellion in Yugoslavia and the landing of British forces in Greece that forced Germany to turn south and delaying Operation Barbarossa. The Italians could have stopped the British landing but they couldn't have stopped Yugoslavia rebelling. The Italians were just a bunch of failures and get off with that war lightly. I think everyone forgets they were fascist and invaded British terrority, as well as bombing Britain.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 5, 2005)

this's more like it!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2005)

Yeap that is what I was waiting for.


----------



## elmilitaro (Sep 7, 2005)

I as a true man have realized when I have been wrong and I have been righted by ya''ll, I'm sorry for my view through American glasses and not through the eyes of the other countries.  I admit it I was wrong. Can ya'll forgive me.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 7, 2005)

I don't know about these guys, but I was more joking than anything. Most of the time, all talk of "My country saved so-and-so" doesn't bother me a whole lot. I know better anyway. Seriously, it's no biggie as far as I'm concerned. After all, I'm "only" Canadian. 

Lanc?


----------



## elmilitaro (Sep 7, 2005)

Hey nonskimmer, thanks for seeing me through. I really mean what i said about me being sorry.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 7, 2005)

Elmilitaro, don't worry too much about it. It's always about learning something new and shedding the propaganda for the facts.


----------



## elmilitaro (Sep 7, 2005)

Thanks.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 7, 2005)

Hey, I wasn't bothered either. Just puttin' out some information for you.


----------



## elmilitaro (Sep 7, 2005)

Well, at least I learned some new information from all of ya'll, like you said and I look up more stuff up now so I won't embaress myself again.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 7, 2005)

Nah, don't worry, I think we have all put our foot in our mouth at some point here.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 8, 2005)

i haven't 

and really don't worry about it........


----------



## plan_D (Sep 8, 2005)

There's two reasons why you haven't had to put your foot in your mouth, lanc. 

1) You hardly ever say anything on World War II. You just ramble. 
2) Even if you had to put your foot in your mouth, it wouldn't be possible because someone else on the site has already firmly placed their foot in your mouth with a sharp punt.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 8, 2005)




----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 8, 2005)

I was aiming the foot at his arse. Honest. It just kinda wound up in his mouth.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 9, 2005)

Arse - Mouth = Same thing!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 9, 2005)

See? That's exactly the trouble _I_ was having! I couldn't tell them apart!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 9, 2005)




----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 9, 2005)

Aaaaaadler...he's winking again. What does that mean?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 10, 2005)

He likes you....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 12, 2005)

We all know that.  Except probably lanc


----------



## elmilitaro (Sep 12, 2005)

plan_D said:


> There's two reasons why you haven't had to put your foot in your mouth, lanc.
> 
> 1) You hardly ever say anything on World War II. You just ramble.
> 2) Even if you had to put your foot in your mouth, it wouldn't be possible because someone else on the site has already firmly placed their foot in your mouth with a sharp punt.




OUCH!!!


----------



## Glider (Sep 12, 2005)

Looking at this question 'WHICH WAS THE WORST NATION IN WWII' from a different viewpoint. 
It has to be the Germans, simply because they started it.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 12, 2005)

Could be, but the Japanese started it against America.


----------



## elmilitaro (Sep 12, 2005)

Good point guys, I have to agree with ya'll if we see it from that way.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 12, 2005)

I voted for Japan, not for that reason though. It was mainly the complete and utter disregard for allied POWs and the horror that Chinese civilians faced from Japanese soldiers.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 13, 2005)

belgium must rank highly as it gave the germans an easy path to france by not allowing the brits and french to pre position troops ....also after being liberated the belgians actually raised prices in the bars for booze over what the germans were charged


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 13, 2005)

My great uncle had an interesting story to tell about an experience he and his squad had with a Belgian bar keeper.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 13, 2005)

If you go by who started the war I would say Germany or Japan however if you go by military wise which is what I think was meant by this thread then I would have to go with France. They completely and utterly proved how a military should not handle a war.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 14, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I voted for Japan, not for that reason though. It was mainly the complete and utter disregard for allied POWs and the horror that Chinese civilians faced from Japanese soldiers.



Thats a good point, how are we defining "worst"? Most incompentent or most inhumane?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2005)

Well I think either one is easy to come up with.

Incompetent - France
Inhumane - Germany/Japan


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 3, 2005)

this come as a little harsh to the French, but its all their fault!!!!!!
I mean come on they had the ULTIMATE FIGHTING MACHINE at the time they had better and more Tanks,Aircraft,Artillery and soldiers then the the Axis powers combined and they were crushed in 2 weeks, it was there 20 year old idea of war that got their butts kicked, their command was dispicable mostly in my mind because it was their "strong advisment" to the Brits not to leave the "imagino line" to form a blockade in front of the Ardennes, The Ardennes is where the Spearhead of the Blitz came through. And when the Germans shoved a few tanks up from behind the Imagino Line, the Franks defending it surrendered without even firing a shot, that was half of the Allied force down the drain, So now the remaining Allied force is running For Dunkirk, The French PM says "we will defend Paris to the last man", guess what? he did it the french way and surrenderd when France still had a fighting chance at winning this war early. So thanks to them the war lasted 6 years, millions of People died, And France till this day is still a bunch of bitter ungratefull yellowbelly's.


No offense.


----------



## trackend (Oct 4, 2005)

I would go for Switzerland they did nothing and pocketed Nazi funds at the same time and they deported fleeing Jews back across the boarder knowing full well the fate that awaited them in order to save their own skins.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2005)

Welcome to the forum 102first_hussars. Another Canadian for the bunch, you guys are slowly taking over here! I concur with you. I believe the French were the worst. They had the capability of stopping the war before it started but they did nothing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 4, 2005)

yup, i say the french wore the worst too.......

actually me and CC were discussing how much the french deserved to be invaded by the rest of Europe today........


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 4, 2005)

Im not going to say that the USA was but there are a few things they did that irritate me, like when the Brits needed the Americans most Uncle Sam turned the other cheek, it wasnt until the States were bombed by the Japanese they started to think our way, but till this day the Americans still think they won the war.

we couldnt have won it without them but they didnt win it.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 4, 2005)

_Some_ Americans think that way, not all. It was a team effort by _many_ countries. 

I also wouldn't say that the US turned the other cheek. There was a butt-load of equipment going to Britain through the Atlantic convoys. The isolationist policies of the politicians was the problem at the time.

Also, after the battle of Britain, 244 American pilots made up the Eagle squadrons of the RAF (no 71, 121, 133). The first unit was formed in September of 1940 and the last of these were disbanded and transferred to the USAAF in September of 1942. They destroyed 73.5 airplanes and 77 Americans were killed during that time.

So there was some American help before Pearl Harbor was bombed.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 4, 2005)

Id say Japan was the worst. They picked a fight that they could never have won. Their concepts of battle seemed like a modern version of a samurai epic.

Japan had neither the resources to win a battle of attrition, did not have the imaginition to change plans when things went wrong, and didnt have the technology and science to steadily improve their forces.

We could also go about their utter lack of coordination between the army and navy, the lack of emphysis on logistics and supply, etc, etc.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> Im not going to say that the USA was but there are a few things they did that irritate me, like when the Brits needed the Americans most Uncle Sam turned the other cheek, it wasnt until the States were bombed by the Japanese they started to think our way, but till this day the Americans still think they won the war.
> 
> we couldnt have won it without them but they didnt win it.



You seem to forget that we had to fight in two huge theaters and although there was great assistance from the commonwealth, the war in the Pacific would of been lost without US involvement. Although the priority was to defeat Germany, the American people feared the Japanese more because of PH and the stories of their atrocities. I hate to say it but if the Japanese didn't bomb Pearl Harbor and went straight to Australia, you think they could of been stopped?!? That's half the reason why many Americans may apprear to feel that way.....

Now to answer your comment about "seeing it our way," we had a huge neutrality lobby in the US, with the main culprit being the ambassador to England, Joe Kennedy who wanted to let Britain sink during the BoB. Roosevelt eventually fired him, and prior to that, there was no justification for the US to go to war with Germany, even though we began to supply Britain and France. Germany didn't attack us, there were no German troops lined up along our borders and they weren't trying to get Mexico to invade us (Like WW1) although there could of been some justification with the rising U boat attacks which were really stepped up after the US entered the war. As a matter of fact, the US had to see it "your way" because on Dec. 8, Hitler declared war on the US!!!!

I think you're being stereotypical when you imply that Americans think we won WW2 singlehandedly. I lived in Canada for 5 years and I met Canadians who thought like you, they knew of Pearl Harbor but didn't have a clue about Guadal Canal, Bataan, Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa!!!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 5, 2005)

FLYBOYJ

Yes I am Aware that United States had a to fight on two fronts, what I said at the end of my first post was The Allies could not have won Without the States,but The States did not win the war on their own thats all,
and Im just irritated by the predent day beleif that Americans did in fact win the war on their own,


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 5, 2005)

Oh and another thing flyboyJ, your right the Germans never threatend the States Publicly or massed soldiers against the country the threat was lurking underwater, 

I had just seen a Documentery that there was a sunkin U-boat found within the the Florida waters, And another not far from New York.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 5, 2005)

You realize that the US was providing aid to Britain well before they officially entered the war though, right?

So you're with JTF 2, huh? How's that workin' for ya?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> FLYBOYJ
> 
> Im just irritated by the predent day beleif that Americans did in fact win the war on their own,



And I think you're being sterotypical about that assumption. You may have uneducated Americans who may believe that but those of us who study history know WW2 was a team effort and couldn't be won without the alliances.

When I lived in Canada, many people I met thought we still had a draft, that irritated me too...


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 5, 2005)

The US didnt win the war in the ETO by itself, but the Brits and Russians could not have won without us.

In the PTO, we won it all by ourselves.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 5, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And I think you're being sterotypical about that assumption. You may have uneducated Americans who may believe that but those of us who study history know WW2 was a team effort and couldn't be won without the alliances.


Well it's hardly just Americans who may be uneducated about history or world events. I've seen just as many Canadians who think they have it all figured out, and who end up making total asses of themselves. They take hearsay as gospel and never bother to research any facts, or they'll listen to all the wrong people. Then they'll bitch and moan about how stupid and ignorant Americans are. 

One that gets me everytime is the gripe "Aww, those stupid Americans don't know a thing about Canada. We live right next door to them and we're their biggest trading partner. We know more about them."
Ask a Canadian sometime about his/her own country's particulars or history and look at the blank stare. That, or they'll have it completely wrong. That always gets me.

It's always a good idea to have your facts straight before attacking anyone, and it's a better idea to know a little something about yourself before whining about everyone else in the world. I'd say that to anyone, certainly not only my fellow Canadians.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 5, 2005)

I like looking at the face of a Canadian when an American team wins the Stanley Cup. Its priceless.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 5, 2005)

Australia, Canada, China, Mexico, Holland, New Zealand, and the UK all contributed to the war in the Pacific. It is not true that the US won the PTO alone.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 5, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> I like looking at the face of a Canadian when an American team wins the Stanley Cup. Its priceless.


Well the way things are going in the NHL, it'll be entirely American soon anyway.

"Bring the Cup home!!!"  

 

Yep. We love "our" sport so much, we'll let the entire Canadian end of the franchise collapse through our own shortsightedness and refusal to adapt. Then we'll complain about the American takeover. You watch.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > And I think you're being sterotypical about that assumption. You may have uneducated Americans who may believe that but those of us who study history know WW2 was a team effort and couldn't be won without the alliances.
> ...



Good one NS - now if I came up to Halifax, how far would I have to drive to see the igloos?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 5, 2005)

Well if we take the dog team, we should be there in time for the iceworm festival. I hear it's been a good seal harvest.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2005)

I'll make sure I have my snowshoes!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 5, 2005)

And I'll bring the whale oil.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 5, 2005)

Australia and NZ supplied a few divisions, and a few groups for the air war. Mexico supplied a squadron. The dutch, next to nothing. The brits were tied up in a sideshow in Burma. And the chinese were supplied totally by the US. 

The US dwarfed them all. In late 1943, once the navy started the island hopping strategy, the Japanese were doomed regardless of what happened in new Guinie or CBI.

The biggest naval battles in history were fought by the US Navy. What brought the Japanese economy to its knee's?.......US Submarines and B29's. Who destroyed Japanese airpower in the PTO? USAAF and USN.

PTO was an American show. Everyone else was in a small supporting role.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 5, 2005)

True enough for the most part. No one deny's the superior US presence in the Pacific, or the overwhelming contribution of the US. As you say, the PTO was largely an American show. Do we just forget the others then? It meant nothing? As much as I hate it when people dump on the US just for the sake of it, the reverse is also true.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 5, 2005)

That's my point, while I will agree that a majority of the work was done by the US, there were other nations that helped out. No matter how small, they helped out, which mean it wasn't completely won by the US.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 5, 2005)

Sure enough, the other countries contributed in the early part of the war. But beginning in late 1942 when the first sizeable American forces arrived, then it became an American show. We dictated the strategy, the pace and where we would fight. Japan was defeated by American forces that were so well equiped that we didnt need any help from all of the others combined.

I ask you this...... name one critical battle (air-sea-land) after 1942, fought anywhere in the PTO that had a direct impact on the course of the war, that was fought by the other countries without US assistance.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 5, 2005)

That's not necessarily a question that would prove that the US alone won the War in the Pacific. You could ask a similar question about Europe and it would still not necessarily prove anything.

6 Battalions of the New Zealand Army were involved in the Solomons Campaign and many others after 1942. Take a look at the link below and it talks about British and commonwealth forces in the different areas of WWII, europe, Pacific and the CBI. 

http://www.regiments.org/wars/ww2/ww2index.htm

We did not do it alone, we had help that was needed. Just because the Americans were in charge does not mean that we didn't want or need help. Could we have done it alone? Maybe, but I don't think it is right to say that the contributions of the other allies was of little consequence.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 5, 2005)

Six battalions from New Zealand? Wow! 

In July 1943, when the Solomons campaign started up, it was a total American affair. The overwhelming bulk of naval, air and land power was from America. Anything contributed by the Aussies and NZ helped, but did not mean the difference between a win or loss.

In NG, the Aussie contribution was more substantial. But in the scheme of things, it didnt matter. If there was one Japanese division or 20 divisions on the island, they had no effect on the outcome of the war. It was the 5th AF that isolated the area and NG was one big POW camp. 

Look at how many squadrons were contributed to the 5th and 13th AF from Austalia/NZ (after mid 1943), and it was miniscule compared to the US contribution. 

The USN offensive throughout the central pacific was a totally American affair. Same with the Mariana's, the submarine war and the battles in the PI.

The CBI was a sideshow. Those who claim it tied up large numbers of IJA troops still havent given answers on how they would have been transported to the battlefields of the SW and Central pacific, and properly supplied. No matter what happened in CBI, it had hardly any effect in the war. Note - even if China capitulated, the IJA still needed troops there to guard against the Russians.

I stand by what I said. The US single handidly won the war in the PTO.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 5, 2005)

Fine, feel free to minimize the contribution from the allies. I will agree to disagree.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 5, 2005)

you say that but i bet you would be having a go at me if i said that WWI was won soley by the british and french, and that america did absolutely nothing??

contributions from all the allies were vital to winning WWII in the PTO, yes it was mostly america, but many other countries were involved.............


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 5, 2005)

Syscom, technically I have no problem with much of what you're saying. In fact, without the United States in the Pacific campaigns, there wouldn't really have been campaigns. It wouldn't have been much of a show at all. Let's face it. A _huge_ amount of ships, planes, troops, and all of the logistics that entails. It really _was_ an American show in the PTO. 

Do you really scoff at New Zealand's six battalions? Not an awful lot by American standards I realize. It was a significant body of men for New Zealand though. Those men fought, endured hell, and died with as much guts, grit, determination, patriotism, anger, and outright fear as any American marine or G.I. ever did. I've known one or two Kiwis in my time, and they ain't the pussy type, I can tell you.

Your reasoning may be sound enough when you discuss the numbers, but your message isn't exactly clear to me. Do you wish for those Australian and New Zealand veterans and their families to believe that their contributions to the Allied cause in the Pacific meant sweet f*ck all? Do you really believe that, or are you just making a point of some kind?


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 5, 2005)

I didnt mean to denigrate their contributions, I was just pointing out that it was only 6 battalions as compared to a dozen US divisions. As I said, in 1942, the support was needed.

By the summer of 1943, the amount of available support to give to the US was pretty much maxed out. The US was growing expontially stronger, while the ANZAC strength was static. The US presence in the PTO was so overwhelming after that point, that even if you removed all of the ANZAC forces from the equation, not one thing would change.

Plus, after the US had Eniwetok and Kwajelein, the whole SW Pacific became a backwater area of sorts.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 5, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> Syscom, technically I have no problem with much of what you're saying. In fact, without the United States in the Pacific campaigns, there wouldn't really have been campaigns. It wouldn't have been much of a show at all. Let's face it. A _huge_ amount of ships, planes, troops, and all of the logistics that entails. It really _was_ an American show in the PTO.
> 
> Do you really scoff at New Zealand's six battalions? Not an awful lot by American standards I realize. It was a significant body of men for New Zealand though. Those men fought, endured hell, and died with as much guts, grit, determination, patriotism, anger, and outright fear as any American marine or G.I. ever did. I've known one or two Kiwis in my time, and they ain't the pussy type, I can tell you.
> 
> Your reasoning may be sound enough when you discuss the numbers, but your message isn't exactly clear to me. Do you wish for those Australian and New Zealand veterans and their families to believe that their contributions to the Allied cause in the Pacific meant sweet f*ck all? Do you really believe that, or are you just making a point of some kind?



Your right, 6 batallions from New Zeland that's ~equal (impact at home) to a million from the US, and from what I've heard the Aussies/New Zealanders were Very good soldiers more than up to anybody else. The Coast Watchers alone (50? 100? They saved countless lives) did as much as any army in the PTO. The British were in a life/death fight and they still managed to send people, and equipment to the Pacific.  

The CBI? The Japanese had more than a million men there, mostly supplied by living off the land. They were superb fighting men whom we beat mostly by keeping their supply lines closed, If only they hadn't been so cruell?

wmaxt


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 5, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> I didnt mean to denigrate their contributions, I was just pointing out that it was only 6 battalions as compared to a dozen US divisions.


Right. Thanks for the clarification then.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 5, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> I didnt mean to denigrate their contributions, I was just pointing out that it was only 6 battalions as compared to a dozen US divisions. As I said, in 1942, the support was needed.
> 
> By the summer of 1943, the amount of available support to give to the US was pretty much maxed out. The US was growing expontially stronger, while the ANZAC strength was static. The US presence in the PTO was so overwhelming after that point, that even if you removed all of the ANZAC forces from the equation, not one thing would change.
> 
> Plus, after the US had Eniwetok and Kwajelein, the whole SW Pacific became a backwater area of sorts.



I was doing my post when you were doing yours, Thanx for the clairification!

wmaxt


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 5, 2005)

on the whole i would rather have one kiwi battalion to 2 american battalions i think they would be far more resouceful no offense meant


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 5, 2005)

It doesnt mean anything to say one Kiwi battalion was worth 2 american battalions. The US approach to a problem was to throw firepower around till you win. History records who won, not who was most efficient.

Troops occupying the ground, and being supplied are what wins the war. And in the PTO, we had a lot of it.

And like I said before, it doesnt matter if there were 1 million or 10 million IJA troops in Burma. The main fight was in the SW and Central Pacific and the IJN had no shipping available to get them there and keep them supplied.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 5, 2005)

CBI was a side-show? Genius ...where did Japanese war material come from? And there were more Japanese troops fighting in China than against the U.S. 

Why do you think Japan invaded all those areas? For the sheer hell of it? The PTO was fought over islands of strategic signifcance because of their position in relation to Japan. The CBI was fought for because it was the war heart of Japan, without it Japan wouldn't have lasted more than a year. 

And good luck to the USN blockaded the entire pacfic ocean ...before you go mentioning "but we mighty Americans would blockade Japan."


----------



## evangilder (Oct 5, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> I didnt mean to denigrate their contributions, I was just pointing out that it was only 6 battalions as compared to a dozen US divisions.



That was only ONE example of many contributions. If you look at the link I provided, it shows the different regions and how much the British and commonwealth nations contributed.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 6, 2005)

It must be anti-U.S propaganda, evan. Don't believe it!!!


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 6, 2005)

The weak point in the Japanese war machine was all their critical raw materials had to be shipped back to Japan by the maritime routes. It wasnt sent back there by truck, but by boat.

It wasnt the allied armies or air forces in CBI that shut down the flow of raw materials, but the USN. Once the choke points between China-Formosa-Luzon were patrolled regulary (and with torpedo's that worked) the Japanese war machine ground to a halt fast. 

When there was a setback in CBI, did that have any effect in the political scene in Tokyo? Nope! But what happened when the Mariana's were taken? Tojo resigns. Thats cause even the Japanese leaders knew where the strategic battlefields were.

For the Japanese to win in CBI, all they had to do was keep the allies out of Burma and keep access to the raw materials. This they did successfully for quite some time. But once their maritime trade was interrupted, thats when they lost. In fact, its conceivable that just with submarines alone, the USN could have won the war.

Now what about all those millions of troops in CBI the Japanese had? It meant nothing because the main area of operations was in the SW Pacific and Central Pacific. The IJN did not have the shipping to move them to the area, and keep them supplied. Just having a single wolf pack operating in the South China Sea put more fear into the Japanese than all the allied troops in CBI. 

I would say that in the summer of 1944, when we had the Mariana's, every allied unit in the CBI and the SW Pacific became irrelevant. Of course MacArthur saw it differently due to political concerns, but thats a different story.

One last comment. In 1944 when Gen Marshall and Adm King were planning their moves in the PTO, The Brits offered a plan for them to invade Burma. They thought so highly of that idea that they politley ignored it. They knew where the main battlefields were.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 6, 2005)

It is quite obvious to me that you're looking at this from the sole U.S point of view. The Japanese thought of the CBI as a highly important theatre of war and it caused a lot of concern whenever the Allied forces in India and Burma made any kind of come back. 

The Japanese GHQ staff were in deep trouble when they failed to take Imphal. It was paramount for Japan to hold Burma to shield their takings, and war heart in the South-West Pacific. The United States Navy never completely cut-off Japan from it's holdings. There was no one-hundred percent blockade so the CBI was always important. 

And then let's look at those troops in the CBI fighting the U.S Marines landing on all those little islands. Not a pretty idea for the U.S to be attacking across islands that are manned by hundreds of thousands more men. There were more Japanese fighting in the CBI than in the PTO. 

Had a priority been given to Burma then the Japanese war material heart would have been open to complete destruction by land forces. But the U.S was too busy making the war theirs alone. Even then Stilwell was constantly pressured by the U.S government to get the Ledo Road and Burma Road open as quickly as possible to put more pressure on the Japanese, in both China and Burma. 

The USN would have had to divert forces a long way to invade Burma. Plus the invasion of Burma was already under-way in 1944. That hardly says anything about the CBI. After all, Mark Clark of the U.S 5th refused to cut off the German 10th Armee in Italy. Does that mean cutting off the 10th Armee was unimportant? 

And let us remember what happened straight after Pearl Harbor that gave the United States Navy a vital breathing space. The IJN attacked India and Ceylon with five of the six aircraft carriers involved in Pearl Harbor. These carriers could have gladly kept up the pressure on the U.S and the U.S would have been struggling to keep them off. 

Just because very few U.S troops didn't fight in the CBI it doesn't make it unimportant, syscom, no matter how much you want to believe it.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 6, 2005)

Let's also not forget that the CBI was important for supplying the Chinese forces. There was the hump operation that was pretty successful there.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 6, 2005)

syscom3 wrote: 
I like looking at the face of a Canadian when an American team wins the Stanley Cup. Its priceless 


Well technically for every American team in the Nhl, there are about 2-7 canadian players on each team so even though it was an american team that won the cup CANADA STILL WON THE CUP!!!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 6, 2005)

Yeah! I like that logic!


----------



## evangilder (Oct 6, 2005)

Plus Russian players as well. Hard to call any team Canadian or American anymore.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 6, 2005)

Half the Canadian teams are Russian or Czech anyway these days.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 6, 2005)

Yep, quite of few of them in the NHL these days. I remember when the guys with funny accents in interviews were the Canadians.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 6, 2005)

You mean les canadienne.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 6, 2005)

1971 Montreal Canadiens....

Dryden
Richard
La Pointe
Lefleur
Mahovolich
Tremblay
Cournoyer
Beliveau
Robinson


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 7, 2005)

Nonskimmer said "You mean les canadienne"

Pardon my french but i think you meen Le Habitents


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 7, 2005)

> syscom3 said
> I stand by what I said. The US single handidly won the war in the PTO.




That is pure bull, 

the Russians had put the largest contribution into pushing the Japanese out of china, British Military advisors taught Guerilla warfare to the People of Indochina, Im not sure but I think the Brits ended up taking Singapore back, what about the Strafings and Bombings done by the Canadian/U.S. Airforce on Japanese Shipping around the Aloutian Islands Huh?

And The Manhattan Project? the team of Scientists were a Mix of Canadians and Americans who developed the A-Bomb, also the Enriched Uranium ore that were used came from Canada,

So it was a like everyone says it was a team effort, and that arrogance is exactly what I had posted about earlier.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 7, 2005)

Although I admire the abuse of syscom's national arrogance, I would like to point out some flaws. 

The Soviet Union didn't have a massive contribution to the combat of Japanese troops in China. The only real contribution was a selling of weapons. However, pre-war the Soviet Union did soundly defeat the IJA at Khalkin-Gol which disallowed the Japanese forces crossing over from Manchuria.

The British taught many groups inside South-East Asia to act as spies and insurgents to the Japanese occupation. These were not isolated to Indochina. 

Britain did not actually take back Singapore before the war was over officially. However they were well on their way. By August 15th, 1945, the British and Commonwealth forces had recaptured all of Burma, taken back Rangoon and Moulmein. Another month or so and Singapore, Malaya as well as all other Japanese holdings in the region would have been in Allied hands. 

It's spelt Aleutian islands. And there were actual land battles when the U.S forces landed on Attu. There was also some interesting sea battles around the region. And, as you said, the air attacks on Kiska. 

The "Manhattan Project" wasn't solely Canadian and American. The first country to begin research into nuclear power being wielded as a weapon was Britain. The research, with scientists, was sent to the U.S in 1939. The Manhattan Project was multi-national. A lot of the enriched uranium did come from Canada. 

In fact, hussars, if you would go to the WW2 General section I have, with the help of others, given a significant "nod" towards Canada's contribution in the war.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 7, 2005)

Ok but the russians did in fact play a very significant role, crssing the border into a portion of Japanese controlled Manchuria (where most of the Japs were at the time aside from Kowloon and Hong Kong) forcing their way into the North Of Korea and occupying it with the Americans taking the south.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 7, 2005)

The war had already been won by then. That was the Soviet Union's plunge for more terrority and/or influence. They did not help in expelling the Japanese from China. The Chinese could have, and would have, done that themselves.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 7, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> Pardon my french but i think you meen Le Habitents


I wasn't talking about the Habs specifically, but French-Canadian players in general.

Have a look around the site. The WW2 General section has some interesting stuff, as well as the other military related sections like Post-War and Modern.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 7, 2005)

The Aleutions were another sideshow. Although it looked quite important from a strategic point of view early in the war, the wretched weather conditions made it nearly impossible to conduct meaningfull operations. After the retaking of Attu and Kiska, the whole area became a backwater (just like the CBI).

The Soviet Union contributed nothing to the defeat of Japan. Name me one battle between Dec 7 1941 and July 30 1945 that they fought in.

"British Military advisors taught Guerilla warfare to the People of Indochina"? That didnt stop the Japanese one bit. 

Lets face it, the facts are clear. When the Mariana's were seized in the summer of 1944, Japan had lost the war at that point. Anything after that was to "destroy in detail". It didnt matter if the IJA had 1 divison or 100 divisions in CBI/Philipines/Rabaul/New Guinie/Dutch East Indies, because none of the raw materials from SE Asia were going to make it to Japan.

Now not to denigrate our commonwelath allies, but aside from a couple of cruisers used in MacArthurs navy, every single major naval engagement after the battle for Savo Island was an American affair. The USN single handidly defeated the IJN. The submarine war was a total American affair. The 20th AF bombing of Japan was an American affair. 

And although the A-bomb ended the war in the Pacific, Japan was already beaten to a shambles by then. 

Plus, after the 5th and 13th AF got up to strength in mid 1943, it was they who wiped out the bulk of IJAAF in the SW Pacific. In fact, quite a few Commonwealth air groups used US warplanes.

Like I said before, the US so dominated the war in the PTO, we can safely say we won it single handidly.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 7, 2005)

To plan D

my paste from another site


(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.)

Operation August Storm 


Operation August Storm was the codename for the Soviet invasion of Manchukuo, Mengjiang, Korea, the southern portion of Sakhalin, the Kuril Islands, and Hokkaido. This was the initial action of the Soviet Union against the Empire of Japan. At the Yalta Conference, it had agreed to allied pleas to break the neutrality pact with Japan and enter the Second World War's Pacific theatre, but not until three months of the end of the war in Europe.

The invasion began on August 8, 1945, precisely three months after the German surrender on May 8. It occurred notably between the droppings of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki (August 9).


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 7, 2005)

Yeah, but the point was that the Japanese were already beaten by then. The Russians were just looking for more territory. Their role in fighting the Japanese was practically nil. It really _was_ nil actually.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 8, 2005)

Not one historian that supports the scenario of a russian intervention in Japan has ever explained how the red army would cross the sea of Japan, and be able to invade Japan proper..

I would say a plan for a German invasion of England in 1940 has more credibility than a Russian invasion of Japan in 1945.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 8, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> To plan D
> 
> my paste from another site
> 
> ...



And how was that a significant contribution. Japan was pretty much defeated. The Russians invaded 2 days after Hiroshima was nuked Aug. 6, 1945 when they new that Japan was going to have to surrender. The only reason that Russia invaded was to put there influence more into the region so that the western allies could not do it instead. Nothing less and nothing more. Roosevelt and Churchill had been asking Stalin to open a new front against Japan. Stalin said that he was keeping up his bargin but that was bull, all he wanted was to build the Soviet Unions sphere of influence. 

If Russia made a great contribution to the PTO then why did they not declare war on Japan before Aug. 8, 1945? The real contribution was made by the US, England, Australia, Canada, and a slew of other commonwealth countries.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 8, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Not one historian that supports the scenario of a russian intervention in Japan has ever explained how the red army would cross the sea of Japan, and be able to invade Japan proper..
> 
> I would say a plan for a German invasion of England in 1940 has more credibility than a Russian invasion of Japan in 1945.



Agreed. They bought surplus river barges from Germany after the war was over. You know, the ones that the Germans prepared, but never used.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 8, 2005)

That was funny Evans.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 8, 2005)

at the time it was a significant effort, considering we only had two nukes and didnt know if the Japanese would surrender or not after blasting two cities.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 9, 2005)

so now we know here in the present that it was a waste of russian lives, but if the Japanese hadnt of surrenderd it would have meant that we would have to hit the beaches, the allies would have been better prepared and the Japamese mainland would have been surrounded


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 9, 2005)

The only reason the Russians invaded was because of the atomic bombings. So how is it the most significant contribution. Sorry if anyone was going to invade Japan it was going to be the US, England, Australia, and Canada.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 9, 2005)

I dont think the US had any plans to ask the other countries to contribute forces for the invasion.

Although I darn know that if the the fighting got really bloody, the Aussies would have been asked to contribute a division or two. It seems like MacArthur liked the Aussies and had a very high opinion of them.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 9, 2005)

The British, Aussies and Canadians would have demanded to contribute.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 15, 2005)

Pretty much all of the allied countries were organised and ready for the invasion of Japan.

Canada would have actually been fighting as its own country on Japanese soil, not as a British Colony or Dominion whatever.
(For most of the war canada had been fighting un Monte.)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 15, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> Canada would have actually been fighting as its own country on Japanese soil, not as a British Colony or Dominion whatever.
> (For most of the war canada had been fighting un Monte.)



Huh? 

We've been a country since 1 July, 1867. But even long after we ceased to be a "colony", we remained a loyal dominion of the British Empire. We didn't even have our own army until 1871, our own navy until 1910, or our own air force until 1920. Until 1910, we were still defended entirely by the Royal Navy, who had ships permanently based at Halifax. Technically speaking, we're still loyal to the British monarch to this day.

As for fighting Japan as our "own country" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean, even during the Korean War Canadian troops fought as a part of a larger Commonwealth force. During WWII we fought attached to the British army groups for the most part. It wasn't until very late in the ETO, and well after D-Day, that the 1st Canadian Army was stood-up as a complete Canadian command.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 15, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The British, Aussies and Canadians would have demanded to contribute.



I could just imagine Churchill pounding his fist on the table telling Truman to let him play, and Truman just smirking about it, hehehehehe


----------



## plan_D (Oct 15, 2005)

I'm sure you can. And I can imagine Churchill bitch slapping that little pussy Truman around the room until he cries and let's the Commonwealth join in. Or ...we could just let the U.S invade Japan on their own. That's a few million less Americans and Japanese to be bothered about. Ha-ha-ha!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 15, 2005)

Nonskimmer

Okay we arent colony persay but every decision we made depended on the brits consent,
yes after ww1 we had controll of our military and had our own name in the LON, but our foriegn policy was still controlled by the Governer General, And as for the Japanese, Canada would be moving in on its objectives as decided by the Allied Command not by Monte.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 15, 2005)

Although the Governor General continued to officially relay the wishes of the British Crown to Parliament, Canada has been independent in every practical sense since about the early 1920's. We didn't participate in WWII, or even WWI really for that matter, because we had no choice. We chose to fight. As I said though, we were a loyal part of the British Empire and a Commonwealth country along with Australia and New Zealand, so there was no way in hell we were going to take up a sideline. The people wouldn't have allowed it. MacKenzie King was a fierce advocate of Canadians deciding for Canadians, so there was no way he was going to just "roll over" because Churchill barked. In fact, he took his stubborn views a bit too far at times.

Canadian troops fell under overall British command because: A) We were a Commonwealth country coming to the aid of Great Britain, and part of the Empire, and B) We only had a permanent army of about 5000 men in 1939, so what else would we have done?


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 15, 2005)

Plus the Canadians were trained in British tactics, and used british wepaons.

It was far easier for Canada to be part of the British army than to change everything to be part of the American army.

For the ANZAC frces, I think they should have been integrated fully into the American PTO forces.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 15, 2005)

We actually used a lot of American techniques and equipment too; particularly the airborne troops. It wasn't a big change, because we were building as we went. In fact, in the areas where Canadians worked closely with Americans, even some of the uniform items were American. In the Aleutians for example. Then there was the First Special Service Force.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 15, 2005)

It's Monty, not Monte! Bloody hell, imagine an Army Group commanded by an Italian mountain.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 15, 2005)

I was reffering to the ETO.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 15, 2005)

Even so, we had airborne forces in the ETO. They were attached to the British Airborne, and wore the British style uniform, but a lot of the initial training techniques had come from Fort Benning, Georgia.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 15, 2005)

Well either way, I dont think any of the Commonwealth countries would have been involved in the fighting for Japan.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 15, 2005)

Despite the fact Lancasters were getting geared up for the long-range missions that would be required of them when operating in the Pacific? And you think the U.S government, let alone the people, would allow the United States to carry the burden of the invasion and take all the casualties as a result? 

This is the same U.S that complained that Britain wasn't taking enough of the casualties in Europe.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 15, 2005)

More Canadians had the order to march to the PTO before it was called off. The RCAF and the RCN as well.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 16, 2005)

The invasion of Japan, operations Olympic and Coronet were going to be a 100% American affair. MacArthur, Nimitz, Marshall, King and Truman had already decided that. If they did not incorporate the commonwealth into the plans, then what are you going to do?

And the bringing over of air assetts to the PTO would do you no good. All bomber strips within range of Japan were already occupied by B24's and B29's of the FEAF and 20th AF.

One little political aspect of the war of that time, is some US leaders saw the Brits reentry into the PTO as a reassertion of the empire. Dont underestimate the politics of that in the summer of 1945.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 16, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> If they did not incorporate the commonwealth into the plans, then what are you going to do?


Dunno about the Brits, Aussies, or Kiwis, but I imagine we'd have just gone home then.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 16, 2005)

NOT TRUE! There were other than American elements for Olympic.



> The Allied operations envisioned would have ultimately involved 5,000,000 men and the largest concentrations of planes and ships yet used in a single operation. The bulk of the force would be American although the British Commonwealth would contribute _three divisions of troops_ (one each from Britain, Canada, and Australia), _the British Pacific Fleet_, and a _small number of air squadrons_. The limited British contribution was largely a practical matter resulting from the logistical difficulties in supplying them with unique items. In part it also grew out of past difficulties in combined planning. Similar reasons led to a rejection of the contingents offered by France and the Netherlands


http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/war.term/olympic.html

This was from an article in the Marine Corps Gazette in 1965.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 16, 2005)

Very interesting, evan. Thanks for the link.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 16, 2005)

Interesting link Evan.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 16, 2005)

There you go. The U.S would never turn down the aid of other nations. Like they'd want to take all the casualties. Plus the Royal Navy Pacific Fleet was very powerful by that time. Equipped sweetly with Corsairs and Hellcats.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 16, 2005)

Not so fast.

Ive found other sources that say the following ".....With the exception of the British Pacific Fleet, Operation Downfall was to be a strictly American operation....."

http://home.att.net/~sallyann4/invasion2.html

The book "Downfall" is in my college library. On Tuesday, I will go check it out and tell you what it says.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 16, 2005)

plan_D said:


> There you go. The U.S would never turn down the aid of other nations. Like they'd want to take all the casualties. Plus the Royal Navy Pacific Fleet was very powerful by that time. Equipped sweetly with Corsairs and Hellcats.



And those carriers had Steel decks!  

wmaxt


----------



## plan_D (Oct 16, 2005)

So, even in your sources the British would have been involved.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 16, 2005)

Yes I will admit the RN would have been involved. For how long, who knows. The RN was never known for keeping its forces out to sea for long periods of time like the USN did.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 16, 2005)

The Royal Navy was put out, when and where it was needed. The same applied for the USN, there's no comparison between the two. The United States were fighting a vastly naval war in the Pacific which translates into longer operating times. The Royal Navy actions were mostly in the Atlantic by escort vessels and in the Med, which was a small piece of desperately fought over sea. Which would allow the ships and crews to go to shore quite often.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2005)

Sorry everythign that I have read shows that the British were going to be part of the invasion of Japan. It was not going to be just an American affair. The same people that believe that also believe that the US single handedly won the war.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 16, 2005)

We didnt win the war in the ETO/MTO single handidly. In fact, Id say it was ALMOST single handidly won by the Russians.

In the PTO the US did win it all. I have not seen any evidence where a commonwealth country made an critical contribution to the war effort in the PTO after the winter of 1943. The vast majority of the air forces, naval fleets and army divisons were American.

Probably the last significant contribution was from the Aussies when they seized Lae. And that was it. 

As Ive mentioned before, the war in the PTO was won in July/Aug 1944 right after the Mariana's were secured.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2005)

Oh boy here we go. You are about to get chewed up here by most of the forum just to let you know. 

Yes the US did make the most contribution to the PTO but you are forgetting about the British and Aussies who fought through to 1945 in the Pacific. Sorry but you are wrong also. Yes the US took the brunt but they ddi nto do it single handedly.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 16, 2005)

i know what the mountain goats are doing up there watching reruns of midway and tora tora tora to upadate their history


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2005)

Huh?


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 16, 2005)

Syscom. You are forgetting about Burma where the British and the commonwealth as well as the Chinese fought a large number of Japanese troops and inflicting some heavy defeats on them. The Americans where dominant in the Eastern Pacific (Nimitz) and where largerly dominent in the South Pacific with help from ANZAC troops (MacArthur). Remember there was more than front in the war against Japan and American troops where only in force on two of them, the other two where the British (Burma) and the Chinese (in China). The latter two faced more Japanese troops than the Americans did.

pbfoot: What are you on about??


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 16, 2005)

All of the important battles of strategic importnace in the PTO were overwhelmingly dominated by the US. More than one military historian has said the whole war in the PTO was a maritime struggle. What happened on the mainland meant little in the scheme of things.

The ANZAC navy contributed a cruiser or destroyer on occasion, but for all practical purposes they hardly existed in the order of battle. Now tell me the math. Start with middle 1943, and tell me how many ANZAC and commonwealth forces had for destroyers, cruisers, battleships and carriers (and the fleet supply train) compared to the USN. And if the RN was so mighty, why were they not needed in the PTO after the end of summer in 1943?

Also, name me one important naval battle after Nov 1942 where the commonwealth contributed more than one cruiser or destroyer to the fight? Name me one ANZAC contribution to the invasions of Gilberts, Marshalls and Mariana's?

And who cares if the brits held up 1 million or 10 million IJA troops in Burma, cause it meant nothing. Whomever controlled the sea lanes to Japan, determined who the victor of the war would be. And since the Brits didnt even manage to kick the IJA out of Burma untill late in the war, its even more obvious that that was a sideshow. I can just imagine the small atolls in the central Pacific just jammed packed with all those CBI divisons just waiting to be cut off and wiped out one by one. In fact, tell me how all those divisons were going to be shipped off to the atolls and supplied week after week, month after month? 

Tell me how many bomber and fighter squadrons did the commonwealth units have when compared to the 5th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 14th and 20th AF's?
I show the USAAF had approx 35 heavy, 7 medium and 3 light bomber groups, 7 transport and 21 fighter groups. That dwarfs by an immense margin all the commonwealth AF's combined. And Im not even counting the USN units. I think the USN could deploy almost 800 aircraft alone on the carrier forces by Dec 1943. In 1944, we were adding almost 1.5 fleet carriers per month! do you think the commonwealth countries could match that?

How many divisions did the commonwealth countries have when compared to all the USA divisions at its disposal in mid 1944? The US had at least a dozen. 

Look at the map of the Pacific. The USN advance across the central part of it is what decided the outcome of the war. There was nothing Japan could do to stop it. The USN had such qualitative and quantitative superiority, the IJN was going to be wiped out if they came out to do battle. They could have defeated the allies in CBI/New Guinie, but nothing was going to alter the fact that once the Mariana's fell, any of their forces south of the island were now in effect, POW's. Now notice on that map, the sealanes just to the west of the tip of the PI. That was the choke point for all of Japanese war materials. Cut that off and the war was won. Once the USN subs were patrolling that area in wolfpacks, the japanese were in a world of hurt. And those subs were being based in the Mariana's and could remain on station for a long time.

Now lets see your statistics and battles that proves your case. In 1942, they were important to stopping the japanese. In 1943, the US had completely dominated the fighting. In 1944, the battles in the mariana's had sealed the fate of the japanese, and everyone south of there became irrelevent.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 17, 2005)

Just a few comments here:



syscom3 said:


> All of the important battles of strategic importnace in the PTO were overwhelmingly dominated by the US.



Dominated yes but were they by themselves? No.



syscome3 said:


> Also, name me one important naval battle after Nov 1942 where the commonwealth contributed more than one cruiser or destroyer to the fight?



Isn't that still contributing? I think you are missing the damn point.




syscom3 said:


> And who cares if the brits held up 1 million or 10 million IJA troops in Burma, cause it meant nothing.



That is a very dumb statement. If those 1 million or 10 million were not held up they surely would have been fighting the Marines on and Island somewhere. Things may have been different then.

Syscom this is a very ignorant view of yours. I see it in others also. I dont give a damn who had the most ships or troops in the Pacific or not, it was a joint effort. This is a good way to make a lot of enemies here.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 17, 2005)

Did the commonwealth contribute to the war effort? yes.

Did they contribute enough to be decisive? nope.

Was it their fault? nope. they were small countries.

Who provided 99% of the warships and shipping to defeat the IJN? The US.

Who provided the bulk of landbased airpower? The US.

How were the IJA divisons in the CBI going to get to those islands? Not even the IJN was sure it could provide enough shipping to get them there. The IJN had its own issues.

How were the IJA going to fit more than a divison (or brigade) on those tiny atolls and supply them when the USN was around? Good question. not even the IJN was going to attempt to supply them. Plus having a division on a 1 sq mile island would be setting them up for group destruction.

If the CBI troops went to the Mariana's, would it have made a difference?. Nope. Since we were reading the Japanese secret codes, we would have known how many troops were on each island and changed the plans and order of battle accordingly.

"I dont give a damn who had the most ships or troops in the Pacific or not, it was a joint effort"...... hmmm....... whomever supplied the most ships and troops usually has the bragging rights to claim a victory. Supplying a squadron of P40's a battalion of troops and a destroyer or two does not mean you can claim equal credit.

Plus, the point is, after early 1943, if the commonwealth countries did not supply anything to the US, would the results have differed one iota? Nope.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 17, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Did the commonwealth contribute to the war effort? yes.
> 
> Did they contribute enough to be decisive? nope.


I _know_ you're referring specifically to the PTO here. You must be, because otherwise you must be flipping out or something.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 17, 2005)

Yes, only the PTO. And if you read my many posts, I emphysize that its for their contributions after 1942 when the US military power was growing exponentially in size.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 17, 2005)

Simply by stating that the CBI was a side-show to the war effort, you have stated that the North-West Europe, African and Italian campaign were all side-shows. After all ...you think the Soviet Union could have defeated Germany on it's own. It doesn't matter that all those countries the West Allies freed would have been in much worse trouble post-war. 

And it doesn't matter that many more millions would have died in China, Burma and India if the British and Commonwealth left it alone. After all, the precious United States wouldn't have had the breathing space in 1942 to lick it's wounds after Pearl Harbour. And all that war material diverted to the CBI could have been sent to the PTO to combat the United States. 

You seem to forget that tying up men isn't just tying up the man himself ...but it's also all that supply taken to get him there, to keep him there and to keep him fighting. I'm pretty sure the Japanese fighting the U.S would have enjoyed more ammo, more air cover, more tanks, more oil. But where was all that? In the CBI, that's where. 

On top of that, it fits neatly into your ideal world to mention the war from 1943 to 1945. Newsflash: Japan was fighting China from 1931. The war was much longer than America's involvement. Alright, the U.S contributed to the final victory in the PTO more than any other nation but the PTO was America's war. The PTO was the only reason America were even in the war in the first place. The war against Japan could have been won without all that in the PTO by just cutting the heart of Japan's war effort, the CBI. And the U.S never did completely cut off Japan's supply lanes.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 17, 2005)

Well said pD. I agree. The Japanese had been fighting the Chinese on and off since 1931 when they took over Manchuria. Fighting increased after 1937 and only stopped in 1945.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 17, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Simply by stating that the CBI was a side-show to the war effort, you have stated that the North-West Europe, African and Italian campaign were all side-shows. After all ...you think the Soviet Union could have defeated Germany on it's own. It doesn't matter that all those countries the West Allies freed would have been in much worse trouble post-war.



The allies would not have been able to invade Normandy without the Soviet Union first chewing up the German Army. Africa was not a sideshow because it was not a battle area once the fight shifted to Italy. Once the fighting in France started in earnest, then Italy became a sideshow.

And what happened post war is irrelevent.



plan_D said:


> And it doesn't matter that many more millions would have died in China, Burma and India if the British and Commonwealth left it alone. After all, the precious United States wouldn't have had the breathing space in 1942 to lick it's wounds after Pearl Harbour. And all that war material diverted to the CBI could have been sent to the PTO to combat the United States.



Well, war is cruel, and sometimes in a global battle, someone has to get the shaft. Besides, I didnt say we should have abandoned it, I was saying it was militarily irrelevant. And the historical record is clear, that the fighting in the CBI did not give the US any breathing room. In fact, some precious USAAF groups were diverted to that area when it could have been more effectively employed in the SW Pacific. And there is no record that the US stopped anything just to "lick our wounds". In fact, in early 1942, there were several US raids into Japanese controlled area's. 



plan_D said:


> You seem to forget that tying up men isn't just tying up the man himself ...but it's also all that supply taken to get him there, to keep him there and to keep him fighting. I'm pretty sure the Japanese fighting the U.S would have enjoyed more ammo, more air cover, more tanks, more oil. But where was all that? In the CBI, that's where.



The IJN ran past its logistics capabilities in spring 1942, and needed a few months to catch up. It was soon very apparent to both the allies and the Japanese that the logistsics in that area of the world was complicated and a hellhole. Again, even if the IJA could move their assetts to that area and fortify it, it didnt matter in the long run. They still had to be supplied by sea, and once the sealanes were cut, that wa sit. In fact, at the end of the war in 1945, there was still around 200,000 Japanese troops in the region, military toothless and impotent.



plan_D said:


> On top of that, it fits neatly into your ideal world to mention the war from 1943 to 1945. Newsflash: Japan was fighting China from 1931. The war was much longer than America's involvement. Alright, the U.S contributed to the final victory in the PTO more than any other nation but the PTO was America's war. The PTO was the only reason America were even in the war in the first place. The war against Japan could have been won without all that in the PTO by just cutting the heart of Japan's war effort, the CBI. And the U.S never did completely cut off Japan's supply lanes.



One of the key reasons the US got dragged into the war was the US putting trade embargo's on raw materials for Japan, due to their aggressive actions in China. In fact, it was the embargo of petroleum and gas to Japan that made them decide to begin agressive action in the pacific, for their Greater East Asia Co prosperity Sphere. You also forget that the Philipines was a territory of the US then and we were going to defend our territory.

And yes the US did completely cut off the sea lanes to Japan. By 1944, when we finally had torpedo's that worked, we were making big inroads in sinking their merchant marine. Once the Mariana's were taken in the summer of 1944, then those submarines were based there so that they could spend far more time on patrol. Did some Japanese ships make it from SE Asia up to Japan? Yes, some made it. But they were only bringing a VERY small ammount of resources needed to keep the war machine humming. The record is clear, the last five months of 1944 resulted in the near 
complete isolation of Japan from the resources in SE Asia. At that point the war was over.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 17, 2005)

please don't neglect natural resources such items as nickle ,uranium and other important minerals that the us lacked plus the fact that your geographic location allowed the north americans the luxury of basicly threat free production the austrailians and kiwis were fighting for almost 2.5 years and most of their combat forces were elsewhere before the us giant was awoken to the fact the world was being threatened yes the us navy and usmc made the pacific ocean an american lake but the inward looking us public allowed the japanese the opportunity


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 17, 2005)

pbfoot said:


> please don't neglect natural resources such items as nickle ,uranium and other important minerals that the us lacked plus the fact that your geographic location allowed the north americans the luxury of basicly threat free production the austrailians and kiwis were fighting for almost 2.5 years and most of their combat forces were elsewhere before the us giant was awoken to the fact the world was being threatened yes the us navy and usmc made the pacific ocean an american lake but the inward looking us public allowed the japanese the opportunity



And what are you implying, that the US should of jumped into the fray in 1939?


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 17, 2005)

Let me say it again.

Between Dec 1941 and Feb 1943, ANZAC help was needed.

After Jan 1943 (end of the Guadalcanal campaign and the roll up of Japanaese froces in Buna), the US so dominated the fighting in the Pacific that for all practical purposes, we won the war in the PTO. 
I am not saying that about the ETO.

After the war when the generals and admirals sat down and analyzed what happened, it was obvious to all, that the offensive threat from Japan ended in the summer of 1944. Even the vaunted remnants of the IJN were going to be wiped out from qualitative and quantitative USN superiority. Japan was isolated from their resources, they were using their reserves, and it was just a matter of time before a complete collapse. 

Once the Mariana's were in allied hands, every allied force south of there could have packed up and gone home because the Japanese forces were isolated and quickly whithering on the vine.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 17, 2005)

And without the Allies invasion of Normandy, plus the many other actions the Western Allies conducted, the Soviet Union would have never been able to push Germany back. Italy was still of vital importance to the rest of the war effort due to the simple fact it tied up men and machine from the Eastern Front. Hitler was even foolish enough to send a s.Pz-Abt to Italy.

Historical records prove that the USN were giving breathing space in early 1942. The only reason they had the chance to conduct raids on Japanese terrority is because the IJN were in the Indian Ocean attacking British Commonwealth holdings. Five of the six aircraft carriers involved in Pearl Harbor were in the Indian Ocean in early 1942. The United States Navy got vital breathing space from that departure. 

God knows why you're bringing the reasons of U.S involvement into this. The fact of the matter still remains that the U.S were not in the war until December 1941. And you're casting out the ten years before that as unimportant?

So what if the U.S dominated in 1944-1945? That's not the whole fight against Japan ...which started in 1931. And no mention of the British from you ...ANZAC refers to the Commonwealth nations ...the British were there , remember?


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 17, 2005)

hey syscom theres a town in newfoundland canada named after you its called dildo


----------



## evangilder (Oct 17, 2005)

pbfoot, it is okay to disagree, but let's leave the personal ttacks out of this. That is uncalled for.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 17, 2005)

plan_D said:


> And without the Allies invasion of Normandy, plus the many other actions the Western Allies conducted, the Soviet Union would have never been able to push Germany back. Italy was still of vital importance to the rest of the war effort due to the simple fact it tied up men and machine from the Eastern Front. Hitler was even foolish enough to send a s.Pz-Abt to Italy.



Im talking about the PTO not ETO. Plus, once the allies invaded southern france, there was nothing the Germans in Italy could do to effect the outcome of the war.



plan_D said:


> Historical records prove that the USN were giving breathing space in early 1942. The only reason they had the chance to conduct raids on Japanese terrority is because the IJN were in the Indian Ocean attacking British Commonwealth holdings. Five of the six aircraft carriers involved in Pearl Harbor were in the Indian Ocean in early 1942. The United States Navy got vital breathing space from that departure.



I checked the TROM's Kido Budai, and aside for the three week period in the Indian ocean from the end of March 1942 to middle April, they were all involved in operations in the Central Pacific, off of the Dutch East Indies, or back in Japan. The fact none of them suffered any damage or lost hardly an aircrew indicates that they would have reentered the fight in the PTO with minimal effort. There was zero "breathing space" given to the USN. 



plan_D said:


> God knows why you're bringing the reasons of U.S involvement into this. The fact of the matter still remains that the U.S were not in the war until December 1941. And you're casting out the ten years before that as unimportant??



The 10 years prior to the war in the PTO was irrelevent. Once we were in the war, we built up our forces quickly and dominated every aspect of the fight.



plan_D said:


> So what if the U.S dominated in 1944-1945? That's not the whole fight against Japan ...which started in 1931. And no mention of the British from you ...ANZAC refers to the Commonwealth nations ...the British were there , remember?



The Brits were in the CBI. I will admit they did a fine job holding the IJA, but it wasnt untill 1945 that you finally managed to clear them out of Burma. By then, the IJN was not going to ship anything back to Japan, so it was irrelevant whether you were in CBI or not. And as I have said, the ANZAC forces in New Guinie the Solomons did a fine job in 1942. Its just that the US had so much more material and personell that we dwarfed anything they could provide. And dont forget we also began to dominate the fighting in 1943.


----------



## helmitsmit (Oct 17, 2005)

I think this is quite an hard subject as although holland were not a big power they made the most of there capabilities. Whereas Germany had lots of resources and therefore had a greater effect of the war.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 17, 2005)

The Germans in Italy were tying up Allied forces, or looking at it from the other point of view we were tying up their forces. The Germans in Italy couldn't have changed the outcome of the war in Italy but if they'd been moved to the Eastern Front, who's to say they wouldn't have caused a serious delay on the Soviet forces. 

Think about the time it took to move the IJN fleet from Pearl Harbor to the Indian Ocean, it's more than three weeks. That's breathing space. How do you expect the USN to gather forces if the IJN were still prowling in the waters of the Pacific the entire time. They were given a spot to gather together, one the USN needed. 

Oh right, I'm sorry the 10 years China was fighting was a big waste of time and unimportant. If only I could go back and tell them that. 

I didn't do anything in the CBI, I wasn't there. Again, I wish I could go back and tell my grandad that he and his buddies stuck in the jungle could just go home. After all, the Japanese forces would have just given up once Japan surrendered. Right because none of them thought the Japanese government were cowards and kept fighting anyway ...


----------



## kiwimac (Oct 17, 2005)

It is possible to discuss these topics without personal attacks. The standard of debate in this thread has, generally, been quite excellent. Please leave the _ad hominems_ at the door.

Kiwimac


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 17, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Germans in Italy were tying up Allied forces, or looking at it from the other point of view we were tying up their forces. The Germans in Italy couldn't have changed the outcome of the war in Italy but if they'd been moved to the Eastern Front, who's to say they wouldn't have caused a serious delay on the Soviet forces....



This could be the subject of a whole different thread, but in Sept 1944, there would have been nothing the german divisions could have done to materially effect the outcome of the eastern front.



plan_D said:


> Think about the time it took to move the IJN fleet from Pearl Harbor to the Indian Ocean, it's more than three weeks. That's breathing space. How do you expect the USN to gather forces if the IJN were still prowling in the waters of the Pacific the entire time. They were given a spot to gather together, one the USN needed....



The IJN carriers were on the offensive throughout the first few months of the Pacific war. As I stated, they were stationed in the Central Pacific, they supported the invasion of the Dutch East Indies, they even spent some time back in Japan. I would be happy to post their movements for you, if you desire. You are assuming all six carriers stayed together as one rask force, and that is not the case.



plan_D said:


> Oh right, I'm sorry the 10 years China was fighting was a big waste of time and unimportant. If only I could go back and tell them that. ...



Why does the fighting before the US entry into the war have a bearing on whether we dominated the fighting after the start? Dont forget that britain was at peace with the Japanese untill Dec 8th.



plan_D said:


> I didn't do anything in the CBI, I wasn't there. Again, I wish I could go back and tell my grandad that he and his buddies stuck in the jungle could just go home. After all, the Japanese forces would have just given up once Japan surrendered. Right because none of them thought the Japanese government were cowards and kept fighting anyway ...



The whole point is the Japanese were beaten after we took the Mariana's. What happened to the south of those islands became irrelevant. Even the invasion of the PI was not needed. The architects of our Pacific strategy, King and Marshall even realized that the CBI was a sideshow and didnt commit much of anything there.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 17, 2005)

You under-estimate the stopping power of German forces. And I wouldn't say they could stop them, but they certainly could have delayed that advance of the Red Army. But we shall leave it here ...start another thread if you wish to debate that. 

No, five of the six carriers, including Akagi attacked Ceylon and India in the opening months of 1942. Those weeks of movement and action took pressure of US naval forces that were still reeling from Pearl Harbor. 

You mean, after your entry. I am not forgetting anything, that is why I gave credit to the Chinese and Chinese only. Britain were brought into the war against Japan on the 8th and it was on the ground. Britain had to suffer more brutal consequences for it's ignorance than the U.S did for hers. 

King and Marshall had no authority over the CBI. That was Mountbatten's sphere. The CBI and PTO were different theatres, and the U.S gave up the 10th Air Force for the CBI. With all the best equipment, including helicopters. They also provided the vast majority of transport services to provide China and those fighting in Burma supplies to keep pressure on the Japanese forces. 

The U.S government constantly pressured Stilwell to open Ledo road because aiding China in the fight against Japan was crucial. On the global scale, the PTO and CBI were side-shows in their own right. As Europe was first but in the fight against Japan they were both just as important. U.S ground forces weren't needed in the CBI, the British Empire and China provided all the manpower they needed.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 17, 2005)

I agree pD, well said.


----------



## Medvedya (Oct 17, 2005)

pbfoot said:


> hey syscom theres a town in newfoundland canada named after you its called dildo



Just about as pathetic as it's obvious. Grow up - child.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 19, 2005)

I looked up the IJN carrier movements on the combined fleet website
http://www.combinedfleet.com/cvlist.htm

Here is where they were for March and April 1942. 

Kaga 
5-Mar	Operations off of Java.	
15-Mar	Return to Japan to repair hull damage incurred at Palau (non combat)	
22-Mar	Arrives Japan	
4-May	Repairs completed

Akagi 
9-Mar	In fleet anchorage in Borneo	
26-Mar	Indian Ocean operation	
19-Apr	Departs Japan with Soryu and Hiryu in pursuit of Hornet and Enterprise. The TROM is not clear when the Akagi left the Indian Ocean
22-Apr	back in Japan 

Soryu 
1-Mar	Operations off of Java.	
11-Mar	In fleet anchorage in Borneo	
26-Mar	Indian Ocean operation	
18-Apr	Departs Japan with Akagi and Hiryu in pursuit of Hornet and Enterprise. The TROM is not clear when the Soryu left the Indian Ocean
22-Apr	Back in Japan 

Hiryu 
1-Mar	Operations off of Java.	
11-Mar	In fleet anchorage in Borneo	
26-Mar	Indian Ocean operation	
18-Apr	Departs Japan with Akagi and Soryu in pursuit of Hornet and Enterprise. The TROM is not clear when the Hiryu left the Indian Ocean
22-Apr	Back in Japan 

Shokaku 
16-Mar	Left Japan 
24-Mar	In fleet anchorage in Borneo	
26-Mar	Indian Ocean operation	
18-Apr	Back in Japan. The TROM is not clear when Shokaku left the Indian Ocean.	
19-Apr	Leave Japan with Zuikaku for Truk	

Zuikaku 
16-Mar	Left Japan 
24-Mar	In fleet anchorage in Borneo	
26-Mar	Indian Ocean operation	
18-Apr	Back in Japan. The TROM is not clear for when the Zuikaku left the Indian Ocean	
19-Apr	Leave Japan with Shokaku for Truk	

Since Ceylon was raided on April 9th, they had to have been out of the Indian Ocean soon after that so as to be back to Japan by April 18th.

I dont see where the operation of the carriers would have relieved pressure off of the USN as by the time the allies knew the carriers were in that ocean, there was no time to really do anything about it to take advantage of the situation. Plus once they cleared the seaway off of Singapore, the carriers were only a couple of days to cruise to get to Pulau or Truk.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

Well guys I am back from gunnery. Got to shoot up some shit from my door gun, was pretty fun, started a bunch of fires because they made the tracer mix wrong. 

Anyhow I see I have missed a lot here in the last 2 weeks. I will just add this though:

Yes the US was the major force in the PTO however it was still an allied effort and I dont give a damn what others think about it. There were the British and the Aussies in the mainland Asia tieing up lots of Japanese forces. IT WAS AN ALLIED EFFORT!


----------



## kiwimac (Oct 29, 2005)

Leave us not forget the NZers that were there and in the ETO.

Kiwimac


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

You are right I forgot them and the Canadians too.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 29, 2005)

Welcome back Adler.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

Thankyou, thankyou I missed you all!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 29, 2005)

Thank god you're back! 


...What?...It's good to have him back, ain't it?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

AWWW I love you too!

Okay not really but dont tell anyone that.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 29, 2005)

I checked out some books at college about the planned invasions of Japan.

Heres a summary.

Roosevelt did agree in principle to have commonwelath forces involved in the planned invasion. However, admiral King, Gen Arnold and Gen Marshall were all opposed. However, they realised the political considerations of having to give the commonwealth troops an opportunity to shed blood.

For the RN, their Pacific Fleet was involved in planning, however Adm. King was furious on the shortcommings of the RN fleet train. King had made it clear that the USN was maxed out on their fleet train, and the RN had to be more independent. The RN "time at sea" performance was not up to USN standards.

For the RAF, General Arnold was the least hostile about the idea. He solved the planning problem with the brits this way.....They could bring their 600 heavy bombers, and the 20th and FEAF airforces would be happy to include them in operations. But....... the RAF had to build, maintain and supply all their squdrons on their own, and because of the ongoing buildup of the American airforces in Okinawa, there was no place to station them. The RAF would have to find suitable locations in China, or wait untill airbase locations were available in Southern Japan.

For the ground troops. MacArthur was stridently opposed to it on political and logistical grounds. He insisted on the following. 
1) The commonwealth troops must be fully trained on amphib warfare.
2) The commonwealth troops must be fully equiped on American eqmt and supplies.
3) The commonwealth troops must be retrained and reorganized more upon american lines, and use US tactics developed in the course of the war.
Surprisingly, the commonwealth govts accepted this condition, and three divisions were offered, one from Canada, Britain and Australia.. These three divisions were put into the order of battle in mid July 1945, and were designated as floating reserve/follow on forces. However, there was no hint of them being included in planning for Operation Coronet in 1946.

Surprisingly, there was a hint of the French supplying a division of troops. Discusions had begun in late summer 1945 about their role, and they probably would be added to the commonwealth countries.

On a similar note, My next door neighbor was a crew member of a LST in the PTO in the last year of the war. The ships maiden voyage was from Pittsburg, Pennsylvania down the Ohio/Mississippi rivers to NO, where they picked up a load of higgins boats. They then proceded through the Panama Canal to Pearl Harbor. There they picked up an LCI that the towed to the PI to be used in the Okinawa invasion. 

For the next few months, they sailed back and forth between Okinawa and Lingayan Gulf. War supplies went to Okinawa, and exhausted and depleted USA/USMC troops back to the PI. One time when they went back to the PI, they found the whole harbor area occupied by the USN Battleship divisions. He said that there were at least a dozen new and old battleships, and dozens of supporting cruisers and destroyers at anchor.
Another time when they were at Okinawa a hospital ship sailed by. He said it smelled like death....... cause it was a morgue ship! Carrying bodies back to the PI for burial! When the war ended, they were in Okinawa still delivering supplies for the projected invasion. Their final sortie was to haul supplies up to a naval station setup near Yokohama Japan. This was in middle Sept 1945. Then they sailed back to San Francisco ( a two month cruise he added) and that was the end of his war, and the ship.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

Good info there.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 6, 2005)

I think Italy. They were a drain on their Allies, the Germans as every time they fought, they seemed to get beaten and then have to plead with Germany for help. The Greeks beat them for goodness sake!! The Italians couldn't even beat the Greeks!! Romania didn't do a thing so far as I am aware one way or the other. France did fight and its Free French troops did participate in some particularly important actions.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

If you can call what France did as fighting okay.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2006)

alright who voted Uk


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2006)

Someone just to piss you off.


----------



## parsifal (May 18, 2008)

Before any conclusions about "worst" can be made, one has to attempt to better define what is meant by "worst". IMO worst does not necessarily mean "least effort", or "smallest". To my mnd, the answer has to remain general, because of the general nature of the question, however, IMO "worst" probably equates to "most poorly managed"

To be honest, I dont know who is "worst", even in the terms I have tried to clarify. Perhaps it was France, perhaps Italy, or even Rumania, but it is hard to point the finger at any single nation.

If you look at France, it was the French who first worked out the theoryof how to defend with Infantry against Tanks. it was called the "Quadrillage system" and it was worked out by Weygand during the latter part of the BOF. people often overlook that approximately 1500 German A/C were lost over France in just 6 weeks of fighting, which is a loss rate to rival that which occurred in the BOB later that year.

Many people are critical of the Italians, yet, if you look closely at thair war effort, it pretty quickly becomes quite clear that their failures have been hammed up by both their opponents and their erstwhile allies. In the case of the Rumanians, few people know or realize that it was German formations, sent to bolster the Rumanians who broke at least at the same time as the Rumanian formations, and that the Rumanian formation defending the flanks at Stalingrad were expected to do that with just 6 75mm AT guns per Division. Rumanian forces were responsible for the capture of Odessa in 1941 (with only minor support from the germans), whilst the Rumanians contributed materially to the fall of Sevastopol. Finally Rumanian airpower was a significant proportion of axis air strength on the southern front of Russia right through until capitulation.
I am tempted to say the "worst" performers were the germans. There is no denying their combat effectiveness, but their management of their side of the war was attrocious. Take Hitlers decision to invade Russia. I know he had talked about it since Mein Kampf, but he had also berated Imperial Germany's mistake of undertaking a two front war, which is precisely what he did himself, when he invaded Russia. He failed to fully mobilize the german economy until it was too late, and never treated his allies as coalition partners in any sense of the word. The minor Axis partners (Rumania Hungary, Finland, and Bulgaria), were all essentially agrarian nations, who lacked the means to properly equip themselves. If they had been decently equipped by their german partners, they would have put up a better showing than they did


----------



## Freebird (May 18, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Before any conclusions about "worst" can be made, one has to attempt to better define what is meant by "worst". IMO worst does not necessarily mean "least effort", or "smallest". To my mnd, the answer has to remain general, because of the general nature of the question, however, *IMO "worst" probably equates to "most poorly managed"*
> 
> To be honest, I dont know who is "worst", even in the terms I have tried to clarify. Perhaps it was France, perhaps Italy, or even Rumania, but it is hard to point the finger at any single nation.



Good points. It can be argued that the Commonwealth collapse in the east in 1942 was as big of a blunder as the French deployment in 1940. The only difference is that the UK was 8,000 miles away so the consequences were not nearly the same.

The Germans missed the oppertunity in 1941 to knock Russia out of the war, or to at least improve significantly their position by the end of 1941. Personally I think the 6 - 8 week delay needed to bail out the Italians was a huge factor. 

The Axis also missed the chance to do much more harm in the submarine offensive by a failure to coordinate plans and therefore failed to use perhaps their most effective weapon.

Belgium deserves a mention of course for the dithering that upset the Allied plans. 

Again Parsifal i agree with you, it's hard to define the terms. Are we including the wilful blindness of the USA UK in failing to prepare for war?


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (May 18, 2008)

I'm surprised I haven't seen this given my previous searches on this site, but now that I have wasted about 45 minutes reading this _entire_ thread, I can only conclude that this thread is perhaps one of the most, if not _THE_ most retarded thread I've ever read on a forum. I'm frankly unsure whether this is just another one of those French-bashing threads (2003-2005 being the height of anti-French revisionism), or attempt to spit on graves of over 220,000 who fought and died for the allied cause. 

Either way, the BS alarm is ringing loudly. But then, I suppose it is expected of the majority of members on this particular forum.


----------



## syscom3 (May 18, 2008)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> I'm surprised I haven't seen this given my previous searches on this site, but now that I have wasted about 45 minutes reading this _entire_ thread, I can only conclude that this thread is perhaps one of the most, if not _THE_ most retarded thread I've ever read on a forum. I'm frankly unsure whether this is just another one of those French-bashing threads (2003-2005 being the height of anti-French revisionism), or attempt to spit on graves of over 220,000 who fought and died for the allied cause.
> 
> Either way, the BS alarm is ringing loudly. But then, I suppose it is expected of the majority of members on this particular forum.



Most people dont agree with you and find it interesting.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (May 18, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Most people dont agree with you and find it interesting.



Thanks for proving my point so quickly.


----------



## Njaco (May 18, 2008)

Wow, talk about a freakin' axe to grind, especially for a thread thats over 2 years old. Isn't that a bit harsh?

I guess we can say you're welcome for allowing us to effectively waste 45 minutes of your life.

Are these the same French Allies that kicked sand in England's face for believeing that the UK left them on the beaches of Dunkirk?


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (May 18, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Wow, talk about a freakin' axe to grind, especially for a thread thats over 2 years old. Isn't that a bit harsh?



No.



Njaco said:


> I guess we can say you're welcome for allowing us to effectively waste 45 minutes of your life.



Don't worry, a bottle of Merlot at my side make things a lot easier.



Njaco said:


> Are these the same French Allies that kicked sand in England's face for believeing that the UK left them on the beaches of Dunkirk?


 
Strong words, considering the level of disrespect towards French KIAs in WW 2. Perhap you and syscom3 would care to review the following thread - 

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...ance-could-ve-prevented-their-loss-11164.html

It's the result of actually having read books rather than following popular sentiment.


----------



## Njaco (May 18, 2008)

Its not so much the subject as it seems you want to shoot the messenger.

Yes, they are strong words I used in reaction to the strong words you used. And its not based on poular sentiment but from actually reading books. One that comes to mind about the French reaction to Dunkirk is Walter Lord's "Miracle of Dunkirk". Even has a pic of a French poster (from 1940) that portrays the British physically preventing the French from leaving the beaches - which we know was not true. Theres sentiment for ya!


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (May 18, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Its not so much the subject as it seems you want to shoot the messenger.
> 
> Yes, they are strong words I used in reaction to the strong words you used. And its not based on poular sentiment but from actually reading books. One that comes to mind about the French reaction to Dunkirk is Walter Lord's "Miracle of Dunkirk". Even has a pic of a French poster (from 1940) that portrays the British physically preventing the French from leaving the beaches - which we know was not true. Theres sentiment for ya!



Sorry, but it _WAS_ true in more than one case.

*Dunkirk: The Patriotic Myth (Nicholas Harman)* _"By 29 May 72,000 British soldiers had been carried across the Channel under Operation Dynamo. The number of French who arrived in England was recorded as 655."._ pg.110 

Later still, pg. 206, an account from General Alexander's diary _"There was to be no embarkation of the French until the British were finished"._ When Gen. Alexander was order to do otherwise and accept the French troops on equal terms, he disobeyed. "_The British government expressed no displeasure at his apparent disobedience"._

I could go on from other sources, but why digress? You're mind has been made up long ago.

I find it remarkable, that after all these years, there are those who claim French cowardice when in 1940, it was clearly they who fought the most, lost the most, and made it possible for the Dunkirk evacuations to take place, that they are still labeled as cowards. Notwithstanding the actions and losses of the Free French and the Underground being consistently diminished and ridiculed.


----------



## Soren (May 18, 2008)

The French weren't cowards by any means, they were overrun by an enemy with superior weapons tactics, there's no shame in that.

As for which country performed the worst during WW2, well Italy ranks highest here in my mind.

An old prejudice joke: _The shortest book ever written was about Italian heroes of WW2_


----------



## Freebird (May 18, 2008)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> I'm surprised I haven't seen this given my previous searches on this site, but now that I have wasted about 45 minutes reading this _entire_ thread, I can only conclude that this thread is perhaps one of the most, if not _THE_ most retarded thread I've ever read on a forum.



Nice to see you again Arsenal! Yes it is a rather silly simplistic thread, posted by some guy that was here for about 2 months. Just looking at his post confirms that it was either a kid or someone rather clueless.



Stuka-99 said:


> I reckon it was france cus they had the opportunity of invaded Germany when they where attacking Poland.





> I'm frankly unsure whether this is just another one of those French-bashing threads (2003-2005 being the height of anti-French revisionism), or attempt to spit on graves of over 220,000 who fought and died for the allied cause.
> 
> Either way, the BS alarm is ringing loudly. But then, I suppose it is expected of the majority of members on this particular forum.



Like any forum Arsenal, there are a whole spectrum of people, from ignorant to open-minded.

You posted earlier that the "Fall of France" was subject to alot of revisionist history, and to a significant extent this is true.

However there are some results of history that will always hang on a nation. The French to a large extent will not be able to shake off the shame of defeat in 1940. You and I have disagreed about the role that the BEF played in the events of May 1940, but when you get right down to it the ultimate responsibility lies with Gamelin and the poor state of the French high command. He expected that he would not need strategic reserves because French mobilization would provide them a few weeks after war began. He ignored the very good theories of DeGaulle {and Liddle Hart etc} about the changing type of mobile warfare


----------



## Freebird (May 18, 2008)

Soren said:


> The French weren't cowards by any means, they were overrun by an enemy with superior weapons tactics, there's no shame in that.
> 
> As for which country performed the worst during WW2, well Italy ranks highest here in my mind.



Good point, as I said earlier, some countries will never "live down" their poor performance in WWII. The Italian army in 1940 that was defeated by O'Conner and the British {who the Italians out-numbered 5 to 1} is a good example.

The poor planning of the British in Singapore, surrendering to a smaller {but very aggressive} Japanese is about as bad as the French in 1940, but as I said earlier the UK had the advantage of being 8,000 miles away from this military disaster.

And I believe that each government is responsible for protecting it's own interests regardless of what others do. So even if the BEF did not do what they were supposed to, the French should have been responsible for their own security. Just as the British have been condemned for trying to eliminate the French fleet after the collapse of France, they could not take the chance, *however small* that the Vichy French government would turn the fleet over to germany, which would swing the Naval control over to the Axis. They did what they considered they had to do to keep Britain safe.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (May 18, 2008)

Hi freebird,

I've stated before on several occasions that the French were to be rightly blamed for many failures. I've also stated and supported my arguement on other occassion that the French, where they failed, could not be solely to blame for the circumstances which befell them in the years/months leading up to the war. 


Stuka-99 said:


> I reckon it was france cus they had the opportunity of invaded Germany when they where attacking Poland.


 ...as an example.


It is the assinine charge of cowardism and incompetence that I find unique here. Among others...


DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And when the Germans took them by suprise they just tucked there tails and ran.



I'm sure the over French 92,000 KIAs all died choking on bread and wine.



plan_D said:


> The French Resistance is often given credit for a lot of destruction and disruption when in reality, they were only an information gathering organisation and not even a good one at that.
> 
> The French resistance is extremely over-rated, in my opinion.



Yes, we all know how well D-Day and Patton's drive across Britanny would have gone so well without them.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (May 18, 2008)

freebird said:


> Like any forum Arsenal, there are a whole spectrum of people, from ignorant to open-minded.



I can fully accept that, but what I find hard to fathom is the reluctance by some to venture beyond their preconcieved notions of bigotry and disdain, which I feel prevents them from really delving into a subject matter to learn more. Is this the same thinking which permeates a discussion when the topic is the surrender of Singapore, or the loss of the Philippines, or the Bataan death March? Would anyone here dare call those men cowards out of hand? Me thinks not.


----------



## syscom3 (May 19, 2008)

The French performance in 1940 was a disaster in every sense of the word. Bravery alone doesn't win battles. A competent nations strategy, material and tactical preparation does. And the French took incompetence to a whole new level.

The fall of France was a strategic blunder in every sense of the word. The fall of Singapore and Malaya, while even more incompetent, didn't effect the basic conduct of the war in the Pacific, other than to have the US and ANZAC distance themselves from the Brits in that theater.


----------



## Bernhart (May 19, 2008)

my way of thinking the country that got it the worst was poland, invaded by both germany and Russia, left to rot during the warsaw uprising , then many years of russian rule and influence


----------



## Freebird (May 19, 2008)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> Hi freebird,
> 
> I've stated before on several occasions that the French were to be rightly blamed for many failures. I've also stated and supported my arguement on other occassion that the French, where they failed, could not be solely to blame for the circumstances which befell them in the years/months leading up to the war.
> 
> It is the assinine charge of cowardism and incompetence that I find unique here. Among others...



I think Adler was toungue-in-cheek there, most serious examiners of history know that the French did put up a tough fight, and although there are cases where the French resistance did "melt away" so too speak, it was often the case that they units were without information or orders from High Command, so lacked the ability to conduct a mobile defence.



> I'm sure the 92,000 KIAs all dies choking on bread and wine.
> Yes, we all know how well D-Day and Patton's drive across Britanny would have gone so well without them.



Well we {British} certainly remember the actions of Koenig the FF troops at Bir Hakim in the desert, holding out against a German force 5 or 6 times larger. {among many other actions}. The actions of the resistance *DID* play a big part in the Normandy invasion later, so I agree with you there.



Wikipedia said:


> In June 1944 Gen. Koenig was given command of the French Forces of the Interior to unify various French Resistance groups under de Gaulle's control. Under his command, the FFI stopped range battle in the Maquis to prefer sabotage that helped the invasion army. Important in D-Day, the role of the *FFI became decisive in the battle for Normandy* and in the landing in the Provence of the American 7th army and French Army B.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (May 19, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> The French performance in 1940 was a disaster in every sense of the word. Bravery alone doesn't win battles. A competent nations strategy, material and tactical preparation does. And the French took incompetence to a whole new level.



You're implying this level of incompetence is unique only to the French. I beg to differ. The US-UK were no more prepared in 1940 than the French. Do you really feel, that had the US-Uk been right next door to Germany they would have fared better? A body of water, no matter how large or small, does not automatically make one nation more competent than the nation which did not have the fortune of having a natural obstacle such as the Channel or the Atlantic Ocean.

This is enough for one evening...I'm off to bed.


----------



## Freebird (May 19, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> The French performance in 1940 was a disaster in every sense of the word. Bravery alone doesn't win battles. A competent nations strategy, material and tactical preparation does. And the French took incompetence to a whole new level.
> 
> The fall of France was a strategic blunder in every sense of the word. The fall of Singapore and Malaya, while even more incompetent, *didn't effect the basic conduct of the war in the Pacific*, other than to have the US and ANZAC distance themselves from the Brits in that theater.



Well it did delay the Japanese while it held out. If it had held out longer it would have delayed the Japanese invasion of Indonesia even longer.

About *"competant strategic preparation"* 
The Americans are also very lucky that the British Command opposed Marshall's Stimson's plan for a "suicide attack" on France in 1942 that would probably have cost the Allies as many casualties as the Philippines Sinapore combined {150,000+}

Even Eisenhower later admitted that it would have been a huge disaster.


----------



## seesul (May 19, 2008)

Switzerland.
Their banks allowed Hitler to keep on fighting by changing the jewish gold for the money...
These banks still profit from these times today...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2008)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> I'm surprised I haven't seen this given my previous searches on this site, but now that I have wasted about 45 minutes reading this _entire_ thread, I can only conclude that this thread is perhaps one of the most, if not _THE_ most retarded thread I've ever read on a forum. I'm frankly unsure whether this is just another one of those French-bashing threads (2003-2005 being the height of anti-French revisionism), or attempt to spit on graves of over 220,000 who fought and died for the allied cause.
> 
> Either way, the BS alarm is ringing loudly. But then, I suppose it is expected of the majority of members on this particular forum.



While I certainly agree that this thread is pretty stupid, if BS is what is expected of the majority of the members of this particular forum, then go and post someplace else.

No one is keeping here....


----------



## parsifal (May 19, 2008)

one of the biggest avoidable blunders was the profligate losses to Merchant shipping by the US in early 1942. I lay the blame firmaly at Admiral Kings feet, who hated the English so much he was quite prepared to lose the war over it. It was only that he was directly ordered to adopt convoys, and offers of British help, by the CinC that the defeat was averted.

This really did have the potential to lose the war, and how King kept his job after it is beyond me.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2008)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> It is the assinine charge of cowardism and incompetence that I find unique here. Among others...



That was meant more as a joke than anything. Again if you dont like the opinions on this forum you are welcome to go someplace else.


----------



## parsifal (May 19, 2008)

not everyone thinks the french were the "worst contributors" in WWII. I for one certainly dont take that view. There are any number of contenders for that prize, large or small. Already have mentioned Germany. In the small nation stakes, I tend to think Denmark might be a front runner. An election was fought and won in that country in 1939, with the slogan "what is the point!" What a war winning strategy!! If we had all asked ourselves that, we would be speaking either German or Japanese right now.


----------



## Soren (May 19, 2008)

freebird said:


> Good point, as I said earlier, some countries will never "live down" their poor performance in WWII. The Italian army in 1940 that was defeated by O'Conner and the British {who the Italians out-numbered 5 to 1} is a good example.
> 
> The poor planning of the British in Singapore, surrendering to a smaller {but very aggressive} Japanese is about as bad as the French in 1940, but as I said earlier the UK had the advantage of being 8,000 miles away from this military disaster.
> 
> And I believe that each government is responsible for protecting it's own interests regardless of what others do. So even if the BEF did not do what they were supposed to, the French should have been responsible for their own security. Just as the British have been condemned for trying to eliminate the French fleet after the collapse of France, they could not take the chance, *however small* that the Vichy French government would turn the fleet over to germany, which would swing the Naval control over to the Axis. They did what they considered they had to do to keep Britain safe.



Fully agreed.

I also think it is rather odd to even consider the Germans as being amongst the worst, esp. seeing that their performance effectiveness on the battlefield was the best. 

Now as to the top leadership of Germany, well this you can consider as one of the worst as it consisted of some the worst decision makers of WW2 such as Hitler, Himmler Goering. These three made sure Germany wasn't going to win the war, eventhough it had plenty of chances of doing so.

But then we have leadership on the battlefield, in which the Germans again can be considered among the best by virtue of people such as Rommel, Guderian Manstein.

But this seems to about nations as a whole, and here I think the Italians did rather poorly by comparison to the other nations involved.


----------



## Soren (May 19, 2008)

Parsifal,

Could you give me the Danish translation of that slogan please?

Also what were the Danes supposed to do ? Do you have any idea of the size capability of the Danish army ?

IMO the Danes did well, esp. seeing its huge evacuation of jews.


----------



## parsifal (May 19, 2008)

Soren said:


> Fully agreed.
> 
> *I also think it is rather odd to even consider the Germans as being amongst the worst, esp. seeing that their performance effectiveness on the battlefield was the best.
> 
> ...



It is impossible to separate the upper leadership from the lower in a fascist state. Granted that the Germans showed excellent battlefield skills, but the strategic , and even the operational handling of German forces was attrocious, directly because of the interference of the nazi leadership. If Hitler and his cronies had been of the caliber of a Napoleon perhaps this overcentralized and myopic leadership style might not have been so catastrophic. As it was , hardly a division was moved without the direct say so of Hitler, at least in the second half of the war.
ut whilst I have no time for the "Hitler was a genius" school of revisionist history, neither do I have much time for "the German General Staff was the best at everything". It was good, and in terms of battlefield direction, I think the best, but by its very nature was not a war winning organization. Its strength was also its weakness. Taught to look for success, and then exploit it, this often meant that a given commander would not act as a team player, for a wider objective. Rommel is the best example I can think of in this regard. His capture of Tobruk was a piece of sheer brilliance, yet he then failed to observe prior agreements, that would have seen him pull up at the frontier, and then return the LW and RA assets so that Herkules could be initiated. This was the obvious and crucial step to be taken, because the Italian Navy was being decimated by the British presence on the island. Instead, Rommel did not play by the team rules, he went over the italian High Commands heads, appealed directly to hitler, charged headlong into Egypt, on, a mission that was never part of the original plan, chasing the mirage of the pyramids that were quite beyond the abilities of his available forces. This in my book is flawed brilliance....it was Rommel executing strategy as his training espoused, but in the end it was the wrong decision 
This is just one example of this sort of thing. German military leadership was good, but far from perfect, and when placed under the shackles of the Hitler strategy, was actually quite poor


----------



## parsifal (May 19, 2008)

Soren said:


> Parsifal,
> 
> Could you give me the Danish translation of that slogan please?
> 
> ...



No, because the source was secondary, and in English. However, the quote comes from prime Minister Staunings speech of January 1 1940, in which he so stressed Denmarks inability to influence events that it became widely known as the "whats the use?" speech. Denmark has the dubious distinction also of actually reducing its standing army after the outbreak of the war. 

If all nations had acted with such a co-operative attitude to nazi agression, the war would have ended very differently. Compare the Danish effort to that of other members of the Oslo Accords.


----------



## parsifal (May 19, 2008)

Soren said:


> Fully agreed.
> 
> *I also think it is rather odd to even consider the Germans as being amongst the worst, esp. seeing that their performance effectiveness on the battlefield was the best.
> 
> ...



It is impossible to separate the upper leadership from the lower in a fascist state. Granted that the Germans showed excellent battlefield skills, but the strategic , and even the operational handling of German forces was attrocious, directly because of the interference of the nazi leadership. If Hitler and his cronies had been of the caliber of a Napoleon perhaps this overcentralized and myopic leadership style might not have been so catastrophic. As it was , hardly a division was moved without the direct say so of Hitler, at least in the second half of the war.
ut whilst I have no time for the "Hitler was a genius" school of revisionist history, neither do I have much time for "the German General Staff was the best at everything". It was good, and in terms of battlefield direction, I think the best, but by its very nature was not a war winning organization. Its strength was also its weakness. Taught to look for success, and then exploit it, this often meant that a given commander would not act as a team player, for a wider objective. Rommel is the best example I can think of in this regard. His capture of Tobruk was a piece of sheer brilliance, yet he then failed to observe prior agreements, that would have seen him pull up at the frontier, and then return the LW and RA assets so that Herkules could be initiated. This was the obvious and crucial step to be taken, because the Italian Navy was being decimated by the British presence on the island. Instead, Rommel did not play by the team rules, he went over the italian High Commands heads, appealed directly to hitler, charged headlong into Egypt, on, a mission that was never part of the original plan, chasing the mirage of the pyramids that were quite beyond the abilities of his available forces. This in my book is flawed brilliance....it was Rommel executing strategy as his training espoused, but in the end it was the wrong decision 
This is just one example of this sort of thing. German military leadership was good, but far from perfect, and when placed under the shackles of the Hitler strategy, was actually quite poor


----------



## Njaco (May 19, 2008)

I agree that there were several badly run nations during WWII. For me it was a toss up between France and Italy. France won out.

I have nothing against the brave Free French forces that fought alongside the Allies throughout the war. But if someone can convince me that not one French bullet took the life of an American in early November 1942, I'll be willing to change my opinion. The French leadership failed the country in 1940 but it was French soldiers that fought against the Allies in late 1942.

And Arsenal, please don't make any assumptions about how my opinion is formed. Instead of attacking the website, why not try to rationally give another opinion. That is what got me steamed.


----------



## parsifal (May 19, 2008)

Soren said:


> Fully agreed.
> 
> *I also think it is rather odd to even consider the Germans as being amongst the worst, esp. seeing that their performance effectiveness on the battlefield was the best.
> 
> ...



It is impossible to separate the upper leadership from the lower in a fascist state. Granted that the Germans showed excellent battlefield skills, but the strategic , and even the operational handling of German forces was attrocious, directly because of the interference of the nazi leadership. If Hitler and his cronies had been of the caliber of a Napoleon perhaps this overcentralized and myopic leadership style might not have been so catastrophic. As it was , hardly a division was moved without the direct say so of Hitler, at least in the second half of the war.
ut whilst I have no time for the "Hitler was a genius" school of revisionist history, neither do I have much time for "the German General Staff was the best at everything". It was good, and in terms of battlefield direction, I think the best, but by its very nature was not a war winning organization. Its strength was also its weakness. Taught to look for success, and then exploit it, this often meant that a given commander would not act as a team player, for a wider objective. Rommel is the best example I can think of in this regard. His capture of Tobruk was a piece of sheer brilliance, yet he then failed to observe prior agreements, that would have seen him pull up at the frontier, and then return the LW and RA assets so that Herkules could be initiated. This was the obvious and crucial step to be taken, because the Italian Navy was being decimated by the British presence on the island. Instead, Rommel did not play by the team rules, he went over the italian High Commands heads, appealed directly to hitler, charged headlong into Egypt, on, a mission that was never part of the original plan, chasing the mirage of the pyramids that were quite beyond the abilities of his available forces. This in my book is flawed brilliance....it was Rommel executing strategy as his training espoused, but in the end it was the wrong decision 
This is just one example of this sort of thing. German military leadership was good, but far from perfect, and when placed under the shackles of the Hitler strategy, was actually quite poor


----------



## syscom3 (May 19, 2008)

parsifal said:


> one of the biggest avoidable blunders was the profligate losses to Merchant shipping by the US in early 1942. I lay the blame firmaly at Admiral Kings feet, who hated the English so much he was quite prepared to lose the war over it. It was only that he was directly ordered to adopt convoys, and offers of British help, by the CinC that the defeat was averted.
> 
> This really did have the potential to lose the war, and how King kept his job after it is beyond me.



That was a blunder of the highest magnitude.

But then, just like as MacArthur kept his job after the debacle in the Philipines, he too kept his and went on to serve with distinction.


----------



## Freebird (May 19, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> While I certainly agree that this thread is pretty stupid, if BS is what is expected of the majority of the members of this particular forum, then go and post someplace else.
> 
> No one is keeping here....



I think he's just a little hot under the collar being {perhaps} the only French patriot defending France from all sides.   

I told him I thought you were probably joking and not making a serious charge

Bunker mentality, shoot at everything.  He has posted some good sources that give the French side of the argument.

I don't know about "majority of members" there are probably 50 -60 regulars most of whom are pretty balanced, some part-timers, and a bunch of kids/newbies that post stuff like "France sucks" or "Helldivers rule". {with no reasons or opinions to back it up}


----------



## Freebird (May 19, 2008)

parsifal said:


> one of the biggest avoidable blunders was the profligate losses to Merchant shipping by the US in early 1942. I lay the blame firmaly at Admiral Kings feet, who hated the English so much he was quite prepared to lose the war over it. It was only that he was directly ordered to adopt convoys, and offers of British help, by the CinC that the defeat was averted.
> 
> This really did have the potential to lose the war, and how King kept his job after it is beyond me.



Very true, and often overlooked


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2008)

freebird said:


> I think he's just a little hot under the collar being {perhaps} the only French patriot defending France from all sides.
> 
> I told him I thought you were probably joking and not making a serious charge
> 
> ...



I dont give a damn if he is hot under the collar or not. 

If you want to discuss peoples opinions that is fine. That is why this forum is even there, but if he truely feels the way he does then he can go and find another forum. Especially when he holds the members of this forum (including myself) in such high regards.

Here is one right here:
France Forum


----------



## Freebird (May 19, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I dont give a damn if he is hot under the collar or not.
> 
> If you want to discuss peoples opinions that is fine. That is why this forum is even there, but if he truely feels the way he does then he go and find another forum. Especially when he hold the members of this forum (including myself) in such high regards.



I'm in agreement with you. There is no need to insult the forum or the "majority of members", that's uncalled for.

I try to keep an fair open mind, {as do you I believe}, so I would hope that if he wants to participate in the debate he will stick to civil arguments and refute with facts, rather than slam the forum or the bulk of the members. {especially the Mods!}


----------



## Marcel (May 19, 2008)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> You're implying this level of incompetence is unique only to the French. I beg to differ.


You're right, Arsenal, no-one was. My country for instance used guns built in 1880 to stop the German tanks, because they realised the threat too late and couldn't buy any weapons any more. 
The thing with France was that everyone else, including themselves thought France was the great militairy power in those days and as they say here, if you're standing on a high level, you will fall even harder. Further more, part of France turned toward the Germans and colaborated with them. In many eyes this doesn't look favourable towards the French. Part of those KIA ware thus against the allies.


----------



## Marcel (May 19, 2008)

Funny, I never read this thread before and was amazed by the ignorance of my fellow countrymen in the first few pages of this thread:


GermansRGeniuses said:


> I have to unfortunately go with my dear ol' Netherlands. We capitulated in *4* (  ) days!!!


Is it me or didn't he count right, it was 5 days and the army wasn't defeated at that time. 



muskiet said:


> Excuse me "GERMANSAREGENIUSES"?
> 
> Sure the Netherlands was not fighting for a long time, 4 days is wimpy at best, but what is little known is that in those 4 days the Dutch used their 109 aircraft (survivors of Germans attempt to demolish the Dutch Air Force in a first surprise strike) to shoot down *328* (!) of the 1024 German aircraft!
> 
> For this the Dutch used mainly Fokker D-XXI aircraft, a handfull of (beautifull) G-1's and a lot of old, obsolete aircraft like the C-V and C-X bi-planes against the aircraft that were the Luftwaffe's finest.


Actually the LVA shot down about 40 planes, the rest was by anti A/C and landing on the wrong fields by the Germans  Totally there were more than 400 geman A/C lost in the NL, mainly JU52 transporters.



muskiet said:


> The fact that the Netherlands surrendered that quickly is due to the size of the country and the ignoranze of it's army's commanders. You see... they counted on the flooding of large pieces of land to stop the German tanks but they didn't even think about the bombers and transport planes flying over these pieces of land and landing troops behind them.


That's because it was never seen before. BTW, the German Falschrim jaeger suffered a stunning defeat, 22nd division was virtually wiped out, more than 2000 of them became POW and were shipped to the UK in time and many of them were dead.



muskiet said:


> Also the utter destruction of The Hague (after the surrendering!)


I always thought it was Rotterdam  




muskiet said:


> ps... know your history!



 You and the other guy obviously don't


----------



## Freebird (May 19, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Funny, I never read this thread before and was amazed by the ignorance of my fellow countrymen in the first few pages of this thread:




Sure Marcel, remember there is no knowlege test to sign on to the forum.

{Perhaps there should be a reading/writing test? Grade 3 level...}


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (May 19, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I dont give a damn if he is hot under the collar or not.
> 
> If you want to discuss peoples opinions that is fine. That is why this forum is even there, but if he truely feels the way he does then he can go and find another forum. Especially when he holds the members of this forum (including myself) in such high regards.
> 
> ...




Well, this isn't the first time you suggested I go elsewhere. 

Adler, my ire was directed at this thread in general. I called it BS. You yourself stated it was silly. Then why keep it? I don't recall stating anywhere that people were not entitled to their opinions, but obviously when I come along and point out that most people's assesments are incorrect and are often based on their personal feeling towards one of my home countries, I'm the one who is the "intolerant" one. Clearly, my opinion is not so valued or wanted in this case. (Mind you, I try often to back my statements with with references and state my sources, whereas many don't.)

You should however, realize that when certain individuals go out of there way to write such skewered and sometime malicious drivel, or "jokes" as you put it, rest assured there will be an equally harsh response. Could such a "joke" about Pearl Harbor, or Kasserine Pass be taken lightly? Of course not, the reaction would be swift and severe, as it should be. Given the one-dimensional and faceless aspect of internet communication, this is inevitable.

So next time I get "hot under the collar", I'll be more careful to direct my frustrations at the comment in question. That said, I stand by my opinion of _this particular _thread. Now, I'm moving on to another thread.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2008)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> Now, I'm moving on to another thread.



Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (May 19, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Further more, part of France turned toward the Germans and colaborated with them. In many eyes this doesn't look favourable towards the French. Part of those KIA ware thus against the allies.



The fact that many chose to collaborate is not news in France. It's been a well tried (and tired) topic of many endless discussions, book, and debates.

As for the French KIAs on the Axis side, there has never been a solid number which stood the test of time. I've read from as few as 2,500 to almost 40,000. What is known, is that to this day they are NOT part of the overall casualty list in France, as French KIAs under the German banner have been denied recognition, at least thats how I vaguely remember a news article from almost 10 years ago.


----------



## Freebird (May 19, 2008)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> The fact that many chose to collaborate is not news in France. It's been a well tried (and tired) topic of many endless discussions, book, and debates.



Most of the nations had their "collaberators" even the British had "Lord Haw".

I suspect that many of the collaberators in the Jewish "purges" were forgotten after the war, unless they were on the losing side.


----------



## parsifal (May 19, 2008)

France's fate during the war is something I would not like any nation to have endured. But its a bit rich to (a) accuse all of us of being rabidly biased against France, and (b) not back up the argument with any information as to why the claims of some are wrong


----------



## Freebird (May 19, 2008)

parsifal said:


> France's fate during the war is something I would not like any nation to have endured. But its a bit rich to (a) accuse all of us of being rabidly biased against France, and (b) not back up the argument with any information as to why the claims of some are wrong




We have had some intense debates on France, Arsenal has posted some French sources on the "Fall of France 1940" thread. I don't agree with all of his posts, but he does have some data to back up his conclusions, not just "hot air"


http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/off-topic-misc/ugly-french-weapons-10782.html

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/fall-france-1940-a-10428.html

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...ance-could-ve-prevented-their-loss-11164.html


----------



## ToughOmbre (May 19, 2008)

Soren said:


> I also think it is rather odd to even consider the Germans as being amongst the worst, esp. seeing that their performance effectiveness on the battlefield was the best.



I think that the men of the 101st Airborne at Bastogne would not agree with that statement.

TO


----------



## drgondog (May 19, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Before any conclusions about "worst" can be made, one has to attempt to better define what is meant by "worst". IMO worst does not necessarily mean "least effort", or "smallest". To my mnd, the answer has to remain general, because of the general nature of the question, however, IMO "worst" probably equates to "most poorly managed"
> 
> To be honest, I dont know who is "worst", even in the terms I have tried to clarify. Perhaps it was France, perhaps Italy, or even Rumania, but it is hard to point the finger at any single nation.
> 
> ...



Simply - I agree your observations and the struggle to frame 'worst'.

My first reaction was who treated the populations they controlled when occupying their territory. For me it was a clear toss up between Germany and Japan. Then moving past the coin toss it came down to which military arm treated civilians and POWs with greater respect.. and how do you give the Germans a pass on both the Holocaust and Malmedy and Katyn Forest? 

You have China, Malaysia and the Phillipines, along with Korea to lay at Japan's feet but those examples pale in contrast to the Germans.

On the other hand who gets credit for treating their own citizens with contempt? USSR comes to mind.

So who naile dthe ultimate combined body count of un armed civilians?

USSR and Germany surface neck and neck. The Germans do get an honorable mention because the German army probably killed fewer civilians and far less military POWs than the USSR if you take 1930-1940 into account.

The USSR may argue that they killed more civilians "but They were OUR civilians"..

Over/Out

To me France and Italy are not a consideration at any level.. the rest aren't worth a mention IMHO when the phrase 'worst' is put up for discussion.


----------



## ccheese (May 19, 2008)

I just saw this thread, after it went on for 28 pages. How do you define 
"worst" ? The Nazi's had their concentration camps. The Japanese killed
and raped their way across cities. I don't think the Germans ate parts of
their captives... the Japanese did ! [Read "The Flyboys"] And, why is
China not included in the poll ? From what I read, the Chinese Army could
not fight their way out of a wet paper bag with a bazooka. Chiang Kai-shek 
was hoarding all the lend-lease stuff for his war against the communists.

France, so far, seems to be winning the title of worst....

So, how do you define "worst" ?

Charles


----------



## parsifal (May 19, 2008)

ccheese said:


> I* just saw this thread, after it went on for 28 pages. How do you define
> "worst" ? The Nazi's had their concentration camps. The Japanese killed
> and raped their way across cities. I don't think the Germans ate parts of
> their captives... the Japanese did ! [Read "The Flyboys"] And, why is
> ...




Hi Charles

The $64 dollar question is how do you define "worst". I suggested that it might be "least well managed". Had not even considered "least moral".

People seem to equate those who lost as those that are "worst". This to me is a gross mis interpretation. If you are a nation like Rumania, trying to battle one of the most heavily mechanized armies in the world, it is hardly a case to support that you are the "worst. If you are a nation like France, confronted with a new doctrine that takes time to work out effective countermeasures for, but which you (the french I mean) do find a way, can that be seen as a case to support "the worst". I think not. If you are Italy, where even your limited successes are viewed as defeats, and all your efforts in the post war revisionist histories are scorned upon because it is convenient for the victors and the vanquished alike to do that, does that mean you are the worst. IMO it is not.

I am beginning to believe that this is an unanswerable question to be honest, and one which it just gets down to personal opinion. I would rather the question be posed in more specific terms, eg worst use of armour, or worst use of artillery, or something similar. The question is just too badly thought out to make much headway with


----------



## Freebird (May 19, 2008)

ccheese said:


> I just saw this thread, after it went on for 28 pages.
> So, how do you define "worst" ?
> 
> Charles



Gosh I feel sorry for you Charles, I read 3 and gave up. It started with a poorly worded ambiguous question, from some "stuka" kid who isn't even on the forum anymore. 



Stuka-99 said:


> I reckon it was france cus they had the opportunity of invaded Germany.



then 20+ pages of replies wandering all over the place, some of them loopy or way off topic



> Just being Kerry more like, you'd make a great couple you know...





> funny, i dont think her boyfriend would agree................





> No, It wouldnt do Kerry's image much good..





> well i could think of plenty more people i'd much rather go out with, i don't really fink kerry that attractive................





> No she isnt, god knows why I fancied her...



The poll does not really mean much, as its so ill-defined, we don't know why Gong-olo voted UK as the worst, we'll never know the reason why as he has contributed exactly zero posts....



parsifal said:


> [/B]
> 
> The $64 dollar question is how do you define "worst". I suggested that it might be "least well managed". Had not even considered "least moral".
> 
> I am beginning to believe that this is an unanswerable question to be honest, and one which it just gets down to personal opinion. The question is just too badly thought out to make much headway with



I agree Parsifal, it might be better to retire this thread and start a new one with a more focused question.


----------



## SoD Stitch (May 19, 2008)

I voted France only because they had so much potential, yet achieved so little; on paper, they had much better tanks and a stronger Army than did the Germans. The Char B1 bis and the SOMUA S35 were actually much better tanks than the PzKpfw I's II's that the German army were using; they were much more heavily armed, and armored, than their German counterparts, and just as mobile. The French also had the Maginot Line, which was extremely formidable, if not inpregnable; it's just too bad France decided not to build it along their border with Belgium. 

Where they failed was in the deployment of their forces; they had superior equipment, but they lacked effective communication between their forces, and their tactical leadership was hampered by a lack of initiative. They had won the last War (with some help), so they naturally just assumed they would win the next one. They failed to take into account a recent radical change in the use of tactical forces on the battlefield, also known as the "Blitzkrieg"; and their military was still wed to the idea of a static battlefront, where sheer numbers would win a battle, not the innovative use of mobile tactical forces to circumvent the defenses.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2008)

ToughOmbre said:


> I think that the men of the 101st Airborne at Bastogne would not agree with that statement.
> 
> TO



Why not?

The German army fought very well in Bastogne and almost broke them.


----------



## Marcel (May 20, 2008)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> The fact that many chose to collaborate is not news in France. It's been a well tried (and tired) topic of many endless discussions, book, and debates.
> 
> As for the French KIAs on the Axis side, there has never been a solid number which stood the test of time. I've read from as few as 2,500 to almost 40,000. What is known, is that to this day they are NOT part of the overall casualty list in France, as French KIAs under the German banner have been denied recognition, at least thats how I vaguely remember a news article from almost 10 years ago.



I understand how you feel. I was just explaining the sentiment here in this thread and where it comes from. 
Never fully realized by most people is the role, the French resistance played during the war. Many fugitive, being either resistence themselves, allied pilots or other refugees owe their life to many of those brave Frenchmen. 

Although IMHO the French cannot be fully proud on their achievements in WWI (just like my own country), I would never say France was the worst. Maybe they were, but no more than any other country in 1940. Blaming them for the quick defeat is not fair. The same is for those specific individual Americans who claim they "single handedly having won the war", which you see very often in this thread and in some others as well. NAZI Germany was demolished stone for stone, one bit at the time by many countries including France.


----------



## Njaco (May 20, 2008)

I think parsifal is right. With this kind of question there are so many variables.

It is hard to be objective with so many personal reasons as well.


----------



## syscom3 (May 20, 2008)

The wording for the title of this thread should read "most inept".

As many people have mentioned, the French deserve the ranking of being the most inept. In 1939 they were a preeminent military power. They were well equiped with good weapons and had lots of manpower.

But they were also very poorly led and followed strategic and tactical doctrine that was a one way road to defeat. That is what led them to defeat so fast.

DeGaul and LeClerc showed what was possible, but it was far too little and far too late.

Britain and the US had their share of blunders but it never altered the basic calculus of the war.

Same with Germany and Russia.


----------



## parsifal (May 20, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> *Britain and the US had their share of blunders but it never altered the basic calculus of the war.*
> 
> This is not a valid measure of ineptitude. The fact that the allies controlled something like 70% of the worlds productive power enabled them to make mistakes of monumental proportions and still recover. The mistakes are legion, the stand out for me being Admiral Kings (through his subordinates, but he sanctioned it) decision not to adopt a proper convoying system, and to refuse all offeres of help from the British for the West Coast and Carribbean shipping lanes, almost until it was too late. There is strong evidence to suggest that the only reason for this monumental blunder was no better placed than Kings intense hatred of the British
> 
> ...




Syscom, I strogly disagree with your position, as you can see from the above comments


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

Parsifal you generalize when you shouldn't. Hitler made the decision to declare war on the US, against the advice of his generals mind you.

Entering the Soviet Union was btw no mistake, the Germans could've easily taken the USSR if it again hadn't been for a number of disasterous decisions made by Hitler, one of them being to send an overflow of ammo to the front instead of the crucially needed winterclothing already in stock waiting to be transported. This decision doomed over half a million German soldiers to freeze to death.

It was declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbour combined with the disasterous decision not send winterclothing which was to be the death sentence to the third reich.

Declaring war on three superpowers at a time and winning no nation could have ever succeeded.


----------



## parsifal (May 20, 2008)

asserting that the germans coud easily defeat the Russians is a VERY brave statement to make. And the generalization is the correct way to go. After PH how long do you really believe the US would remain neutral to Germany. The US was baying for blood after Pearl, and not just for japanese blood. It was just an awkward diplomatic situation, nothing more, that hitler obligingly solved. 

And I fail to see, how attacking the USSR lessens the strategic blunder of opening a second front, when the first one is far from decided.

The only thing to said in its (ie the attack on Russia) favour was that if the Germans had been able to defeat the Soviets, the war would progress for a lot longer than it did. in this regard I agree with some earlier statements made by Syscom himself, namely that the US was the key to victory, and that was going to happen sooner or later.

HOWEVER, the Germans grossly underestimated the problems in russia, by a very wide margin, and that is probably the biggest mistake they made of all the litany of mistakes that can be laid at Germany's feet


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 20, 2008)

Don't forget that the US was already basicly in the war to a small extent (USN escots for British in Atlantic) by 1941.

However if Germany had gone straight for Russia, and left Britain alone, it could have been a different story. Granted the delayed expansion of the Millitary economy was a major problem.

But if they'd left Britain alone it could have delayed their (and the US) continued involvement significantly.


And if Germany had broken ties with Japan (or even Declaired war on them) that would have majorly confused things for the US. Particularly if Germany had invaded Russia and left Britain alone. Possibly even resulting in an "Unholy alliance" similar to the one with the USSR. (and the Declaration of war on Japan would, in realiy, mean little more than a political move as there wasn't a whole lot Germany could do from its position)


----------



## Marcel (May 20, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> The wording for the title of this thread should read "most inept".
> 
> As many people have mentioned, the French deserve the ranking of being the most inept. In 1939 they were a preeminent military power. They were well equiped with good weapons and had lots of manpower.
> 
> But they were also very poorly led and followed strategic and tactical doctrine that was a one way road to defeat. That is what led them to defeat so fast.


Hmm, how long would the UK have lasted if they had been firmly attached to the mainland with nice soil on which those nice German tanks could roll? Or the US in that matter in 1940? I agree on the French being poorly led, but that applies to all the countries in 1940, apart from Germany. 




syscom3 said:


> Britain and the US had their share of blunders but it never altered the basic calculus of the war.


See above, so the fact that you have the luxury of not having to face the enemy as you are protected by miles of water makes you better than the once who are not that lucky?


----------



## syscom3 (May 20, 2008)

> See above, so the fact that you have the luxury of not having to face the enemy as you are protected by miles of water makes you better than the once who are not that lucky?



The US was not involved in the war at that time so any "ineptness" was impossible to prove.

The French ranked high so the fall was made worse.


----------



## parsifal (May 20, 2008)

One other thing about Sorens post that occurred to me. It will be pointless to argue whether or not Germany could, or could not have defeated Germany. Whatever evidence is presented, it will just be refuted, and denied.

However, just considering Sorens position for a minute, he is basically saying that the war against Russia was winnable for Germany. But they didnt, because of the failures in German leadership. Which only reinforces the argument that Germany was the most ineptly led country in the war. Here they are, with the means to win their war, but blew it, because of the mistakes made by their leader. In my book, that only reinforces the case for Germany to be named the worst led country in WWII


----------



## Njaco (May 20, 2008)

ahhhhh, but there is the crux of the situation. Is the thread "Worst led"?


----------



## parsifal (May 20, 2008)

Hi Njaco

Well for such a poorly defined question I think that leadership/management is about the only measure we can apply, unless someone wants to go and produce a list of factors, apply a relative weighting, and then apply the formula. Im certainly not going to try that


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 20, 2008)

Interesting idea about Germany declaring war on Japan. It's true Japan had little way to retaliate. It would have been confused, since it was at war with Russia as well, and Russia at war with Germany, and Germany at war with them, Japan. 

I think Japan would have allied itself with Russia in that case, maybe, but like you said there would be little it could do. It couldn't pull a "Pearl Harbor" over Berlin or any German City. They were too faraway. 

On the whole, was it a good idea or not for Germany to ally itself with Italy? Fighting Mussolini would have been hard, since he's on Germany's back doorstep.


----------



## ToughOmbre (May 20, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why not?
> 
> The German army fought very well in Bastogne and almost broke them.



Very true Adler. The German army always fought well. My point was to counter Soren's statement, *"seeing that their performance effectiveness on the battlefield was the best"*. If that statement by Soren is true (and in my opinion it is not) then the Screaming Eagles would not have held, even though they were surrounded, out-manned and out-gunned.

Just very tired of Soren's point of view that the German military in WW II was the greatest fighting force in the history of the world. 

TO


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2008)

> Just very tired of Soren's point of view that the German military in WW II was the greatest fighting force in the history of the world.



Come on lets not overreact.

Some branches of the German army were the best of their time (not in the history of mankind), their training being three times the lenght of any Allied soldier and their equipment in many cases superior. For this reason the German soldiers of the Wehrmacht Waffen SS from the 30's and up until 43 can be considered the best trained in the world, and their better effectiveness on the battlefield was well proven. (Something Patton noted as-well)

However by mid 44 to 45 the training period for the newly enlisted German soldiers had been cut extremely short by comparison to earlier on, and the fighting quality of the new men sent to the fronts at that point were therefore but amateurs compared to the coming out of boot camp earlier on. 

That having been said the soldiers from the US UK weren't poorly trained or badly equipped, they were well trained, highly motivated well equipped. 

The most poorly trained soldiers of the war were undoubtedly the Soviet soldiers. 

PS: Let's not forget that from every conflict we learn valuable lessons and implement them in our future training of recruits.


----------



## syscom3 (May 21, 2008)

I have to agree with Soren to some degree.

The German army was a well led and magnificently equipped force.

It was usually defeated in the field only because the allies had superior logistics and air power.

They were not supermen, but not push overs either.


----------



## Marcel (May 21, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> The US was not involved in the war at that time so any "ineptness" was impossible to prove.
> 
> The French ranked high so the fall was made worse.



Hmmm, the US got quite a beating in 1941/first half of 1942 against Japan. They were lucky they could withdraw and gather strength. The French didn´t have that luxury. 



> The German army was a well led and magnificently equipped force.
> 
> It was usually defeated in the field only because the allies had superior logistics and air power.


You´re right. Interestingly, I read about an exeption on that. German 22nd division paratroopers were defeated within 24 hours by Dutch recrutes(!) in 1940. You can imagine I read that twice before realising what was said


----------



## syscom3 (May 21, 2008)

Any ineptness the US had was measured against the immense industrial and manpower reserves the US had.

We could mess up and not impact the course of the war.

One big difference between the US and France in 1939 ..... 
France was equipped and ready for war. The US was still in our isolationist mode.


----------



## Marcel (May 21, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Any ineptness the US had was measured against the immense industrial and manpower reserves the US had.
> 
> We could mess up and not impact the course of the war.
> 
> ...



True. I would say for the US, having water between them and their enemy was also a great help.

As for France, that is counts for most countries in 1940 including the UK. They were however ill prepared for the new tactics the Germans used. In a trench war they probably would have stood a chance, but the Germans thought otherwise. Their (France) pre-war defense policy was a disaster, but again, not unlike most other countries, including the US and UK.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 21, 2008)

ToughOmbre said:


> Just very tired of Soren's point of view that the German military in WW II was the greatest fighting force in the history of the world.
> 
> TO



Aha got you, and agree.



syscom3 said:


> I have to agree with Soren to some degree.
> 
> The German army was a well led and magnificently equipped force.
> 
> ...



Agreed. I don't think I could have said it better.


----------



## The Basket (May 21, 2008)

I'm not a fan of French bashing.

Read about Verdun or Napoleon or the fact that American independence was based on French support. 

They got it wrong in 1940. they paid for it,

The Germans and the Japanese were the wrong'uns who tried to conquer the world and got devastated for their trouble.


----------



## stasoid (May 21, 2008)

Hitler, in my opinion, made a fatal mistake by invading Russia in 1941. Had he finished England first, so Americans wouldnt have a brigehead to open the Second Front in Europe, he would have gotten a chance to defete the USSR later on. 



Soren said:


> Entering the Soviet Union was btw no mistake, the Germans could've easily taken the USSR if it again hadn't been for a number of disasterous decisions made by Hitler



Easily taken the USSR? Look at the map my friend. In a war with Russia you can achieve some tactical superiority like taking industrial centers or even capturing its capital city but that doesnt mean the war is over. 

In 1941/42 the soviets relocated their industrial potential from the european part of the country to the east behind Ural mountains 2000 miles away from the front line, built hundrieds of new factories in Siberia increasing military production by several times each subsequent year.

Have you heard anything about guerilla war in German's rear? There were tens or even hundreds of thouthands men aged from 12 to 70 who took weapon and fought for several years non-stop.

This war for Germany could have lasted for 5, 10, 15 years... until the last German soldier was killed. Hitler took a risky gamble with some illusive goals. It's not even clear what he was hoping to achieve there...


----------



## parsifal (May 21, 2008)

hi stasoid

i find found Sorens haughty dismissal of Soviet resistance and the sheer scale of the country and the problems that causes any invader, quite breathtaking. However, given a different approach to the campaign, it may have been possible to extract a negotiated peace or truce from the Soviets in 1941 or 1942. However, this could at best be temporary, and certainly does not vindicate the decision to go into Russia in the first place. This, was without a doubt in my mind, a blunder of the first magnitude. And the proof of this is in the result....germany's defeat can be directly traced back to her decision to invade the USSR


----------



## The Basket (May 21, 2008)

parsifal said:


> hi stasoid
> 
> i find found Sorens haughty dismissal of Soviet resistance and the sheer scale of the country and the problems that causes any invader, quite breathtaking. However, given a different approach to the campaign, it may have been possible to extract a negotiated peace or truce from the Soviets in 1941 or 1942. However, this could at best be temporary, and certainly does not vindicate the decision to go into Russia in the first place. This, was without a doubt in my mind, a blunder of the first magnitude. And the proof of this is in the result....germany's defeat can be directly traced back to her decision to invade the USSR



Hitlers invasion of USSR was political as well as racial. Hitler was the enemy of Jews and Communism and it was the prize of living space too.

The Germans would have done far better if they promised the Soviet people bread and freedom. 

Mass murder, starvation and slavery isn't exactly vote winners.


----------



## Soren (May 21, 2008)

The time it took the Germans to be at the very gates of the city Moscow only serves to illustrate how easily Germany could've won if it hadn't been for Hitler's disasterous decision not to send his troops wintercloths. This idiotic decision by Hitler completely stalled the offensive and hundreds of thousands German soldiers froze to death, and the ones who managed to survive had their combat effectiveness drastically reduced as they both had to fight the cold and Soviets at the same time. That was the break the Soviets had been looking for.

Had Hitler sent his men their winterclothing Stalingrad would've fallen before the end of 42 and a strong foothold had been established, and then the German army could concentrate on capturing the oil fields of the Caucasus region, which undoubtedly would've followed suit soon after.

With the Caucasus oil fields captured the war would've been over for the Soviets as the Germans from then would've established a sound supply route and were now well supplied with fuel oil to power their drive further into the Soviet Union. 

Stalin knew all this and therefore had already made plans at how to establish a peace settlement with the Germans during the battle of Stalingrad, being only days away from surrendering the city when the Germans were in control of over 90% of it.


----------



## Soren (May 21, 2008)

The time it took the Germans to be at the very gates of the city Moscow only serves to illustrate how easily Germany could've won if it hadn't been for Hitler's disasterous decision not to send his troops wintercloths. This idiotic decision by Hitler completely stalled the offensive and hundreds of thousands German soldiers froze to death, and the ones who managed to survive had their combat effectiveness drastically reduced as they both had to fight the cold and Soviets at the same time. That was the break the Soviets had been looking for.

Had Hitler sent his men their winterclothing Stalingrad would've fallen before the end of 42 and a strong foothold had been established, and then the German army could concentrate on capturing the oil fields of the Caucasus region, which undoubtedly would've followed suit soon after.

With the Caucasus oil fields captured the war would've been over for the Soviets as the Germans from then would've established a sound supply route and were now well supplied with fuel oil to power their drive further into the Soviet Union. 

Stalin knew all this and therefore had already made plans at how to establish a peace settlement with the Germans during the battle of Stalingrad, being only days away from surrendering the city when the Germans were in control of over 90% of it.


----------



## parsifal (May 21, 2008)

Yeah, they could have done lots of things, but they didnt, why, because they were ineptly led...hence they are front runners for the crown worst country of WWII

PS. The only way this can be disproved, is if someone concedes that there were limits to German military capability


----------



## Njaco (May 21, 2008)

I agree with Basket. From what I've read, when the German armies "liberated" vast areas of the USSR the populace actually greeted them as saviours. It was only when the follow-up occupation forces came in and terrorized them that the partisans emerged. If this is true, then that may have been a even bigger blunder than military objectives.


----------



## parsifal (May 21, 2008)

I dont give the "Russian Alliance" theories much more credence than Sorens "Aryan Supremacy" c*ap. Hitler had made plain his intentions regarding Russia and the Russian peoples since Mein Kampf, and they made the Holocaust look like a picnic in the park. Fundamental to the Nazi creed was the idea of Living Space, guess whos living space that was. It was the Ukraine and beyond. guess what the plan was right from before even the Nazis were in power, to exterminate the current peoples to make way for this living space drivel. To turn that on its head at the last minute was akin to trying to make a lion go vegetarian, it just aint gonna happen boys


----------



## Njaco (May 21, 2008)

I agree with you Pars but if that wasn't the creed - the subhuman Slavik races - would making peace with the populace in a common fight against the Soviet regime have been a better outcome? Just curious.


----------



## parsifal (May 21, 2008)

well yes, in those terms it would have been a different outcome, but the argument is non-sequita, because without the living space creed, i dont think the war would have occurred in the first place


----------



## Njaco (May 21, 2008)

True. I have that human condition called "What if?". But you are right.


----------



## parsifal (May 21, 2008)

I'll try and put the question this way...how would the Americans react if all of a sudden the Canadians said they wanted Kansas, but they will be real nice to you if you do? Do you think the Ukrainians, or the byelorussians are any less attached to their real estate. Sure they hated Stalin, and the Soviets, but at least Stalin had let some of them stay there, whilst I am no friend of the communists, I doubt that the Nazis would have behaved better, even when they actually try to be nice


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 21, 2008)

I think what some people are failing to realize that just because Moscow was taken does not mean the Russians would have been defeated.

Russia is a vast country and had more resources in manpower than the Germans had. The Russians would have simply packed up their government and their factories (which they did do at times) and would have moved farther east.

I too beleive that the Germans could have defeated the Russians however. Would it have been easy as some people like to believe? Hell no...

Would it have been quick? Hell no, it would have lasted for years and years.


----------



## Marcel (May 21, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Would it have been quick? Hell no, it would have lasted for years and years.



Years that the Germans didn't have. They were prepared for a short kind of war when they started in 1939. It turned out to be different and the Germans couldn't last that long. I don't believe they would have had the resources to go on for many years more, while I do believe the Russians could.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 21, 2008)

I pretty much agree with you. I think some people underestimate the Russians. They were not the best army but there were a lot of them and the vast amount of land was on there side.


----------



## Njaco (May 21, 2008)

I've always had a gut feeling that no matter if Moskow or Stalingrad or any other piece of the country was taken, it was just too vast. Like Adler said, it would have lasted years.


----------



## Marcel (May 21, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I pretty much agree with you. I think some people underestimate the Russians. They were not the best army but there were a lot of them and the vast amount of land was on there side.



Exactly and the Russian leaders were pretty much willing to sacrifice lives as much as needed. It's hard to fight that. 

I think the admiration many have for the German army comes from the fact that given the size of the country and the resources they had, they still could fight that long against the rest of the world. No one would have won in that situation and few would have lasted as long as the Germans did. But i think whatever way you look at it, the Germans could never win in the end. Even if the Germans would have "won" like Soren claims, it would only have been a temporarily one. It would have cost them a lot to keep the conquered country under control and with the war going on in the west and the US entering the war, they still would have run out of breath in the end.


----------



## parsifal (May 21, 2008)

When you look at all the parts of the equation, the weather, the limited manpower of the wehrmacht, the vast amounts of manpower for the Russians, the attrocious performance of the German leadership, the distances, the weather, the inate fighting abilities of the Russians, and their ability to put up with intense hardship, the limits on the logistical network that the Germans could put into the theatre, the poor road network, the increasingly better Soviet training and technique etc etc, it is hard for me to accept that the Germans had any chance of winning the war. I believe that the Germans may well have been able to take Moscow, but this would have meant a quid pro quo somewhere else, such as the Russians not losing 667000 men in Kiev....The late capture of Moscow would in the finish have probably been a major disaster for the Germans, dwarfing the losses at Stalingrad. The Germans were concentrating three armies for the capture of that city, not one, and when you read the estimates (made by Gehlen) of the reserves the Russians had behind the city (albeit, many incompletely equipped), and the help that would have been rushed to the Soviets by the allies if Moscow had fallen, the full magnitude of the difficulties faced starts to hit home

My stepfather was a machinegunner at Stalingrad. He was shot by a Russian sniper in the arm, using a dum dum bullet. He was saved by a Ukrainian Hiwi, who picked up the MG 42 and proceeded to kill scores of his own countrymen . After he was done, the Hiwi dropped the gun, and just walked off, never to be seen again. Max (my stepfather), if he heard what Soren has to say on this subject would want to publicly flog him. In the opinion of my stepfather, the Russians are one of the most malaigned armies in history. He thinks they are thoroughly dangerous and professional, and some of the best close assault troops around. He is extremely critical of the German leadership.

I dont agree with everything my stepfather has told me, but his exeriences and observations should not be dismissed.

I believe that the Germans put in a very good performance in Russia, and that any other army would not have been able to endure what they endured. But I also can see no real evidence to support this notion that the Germans could have defeated the Russians in any true sense of the word


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 21, 2008)

Germans would be gaining the Russian resources as they advanced as well though.


----------



## parsifal (May 21, 2008)

Not really, the Russians were carrying out a comphrehensive scorched earth policy as they retreated, right from the beiginning. Just as an example, when the Caucasian oilfields were captured, in 1942, a German engineering assessment estimated that it would take more than two years of intensive effort, occupying more than half the daily train movements available to Army Group South at the time, to return the oilfields to a very minimal level of production. And this sort of systematic destruction was occurring everywhere. Moreover, whatever they could remove, the Russians were relocating plant and material to the Urals and beyond, and in record time


----------



## Soren (May 21, 2008)

> "Aryan Supremacy" c*ap



What ??! 

So let me get you straight here Parsifal, you just called me a Racist a Nazi ??

_____________________________

Some people seem unable to understand that with the caucasus oil fields captured the German war machine would suddenly have all the fuel oil it needed, And on top of this with Stalingrad captured allot of the logistical problems would've been solved.

Sure the Russians could move their industry back into Siberia, but without the caucasus oil fields and against a now well fueled German army the Soviets were doomed to lose, and Stalin knew this.

Note that the Soviets were able to stall German offensives in huge Urban areas such as Stalingrad Leningrad, however out in the open the Soviets were at a big disadvantage and were massacred every single time. Stalin knew this and hence his peace settlement plans if Stalingrad fell. The landscape from Stalingrad further up was greatly in favour of the Germans. 

In short Stalin knew that if Stalingrad fell the Germans would've secured themselves a very strong foothold in Russia and that the capture of the caucasus region was then inevitable. And with the capture of the caucasus region the German war machine would suddenly be fueled to rumble across the rest of the USSR.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 21, 2008)

What about the Scorched earth policy?

Inless they could have advanced rapidly enough to capture the resources before they could be removed/destroyed/rendered (at least temporarily) inoperable.
(another thing to think about is how rapid the advance if Germany had gone straight for Russia instad of starting the BoB, in addition to delaying continued action of Brits and the US as earlier mentioned not to mention the Japan issue; while at the ame time getting their war industry ramped up to full)


But another thing I meant was, not just gaining resourses, but the Soviets loosing resourses and increasingly weakening while moving and reconstructin their base. (both military and economic)


----------



## Soren (May 21, 2008)

The scorched earth policy wouldn't have worked in the caucasus region (Which is most effective in destroying food resources from profitable farmland) as the Germans were fully prepared to put up new refineries in the area and would quickly and easily be able to work with their newly gained resources. Preperations for quickly putting up new oil refineries had already been done long before the assault on the region.


----------



## Soren (May 21, 2008)

> But another thing I meant was, not just gaining resourses, but the Soviets loosing resourses and increasingly weakening while moving and reconstructin their base. (both military and economic)



Exactly KK, the Germans would while gaining new resources also be taking away resources from the Soviets, and a huge amount at that, which is the reason behind the desperate defensive of the region. 

We can thank god that Hitler messed it all up cause like many of his generals mentioned; Stalingrad the Caucasus were but a lenght of hair away from being captured when Hitler screwed it all up. Hitler's failure to send his men winterclothes during the battle for Stalingrad is what cost them the war in their eyes.


----------



## parsifal (May 21, 2008)

Soren

You insinuated in your previous posts that the Germans were unstoppable. One way of interpreting that rubbish is to label it aryan supremicist. I did not label you a racist. It insinuate that the Germans are a master race to which all others, but particualrly the untermenschen slavics, have no chances. I see that as the racist overtone. i just put the label on the issue. I did not call you a racist, but if you want to draw the conclusion from that, then so be it


----------



## parsifal (May 21, 2008)

The Germans suffered enormous difficulties in just getting where they needed to get.


----------



## Soren (May 21, 2008)

I never said they were unstoppable Parsifal, that is again just your interpretation of what I said. If the Germans were unstoppable then they would've won the war, they didn't.

However by 1942 it took the disasterous decision made by Hitler not to send winterclothing to stop the German army, had Hitler not made this decision the German army would've captured Stalingrad and soon after the caucasus region. After that it should be pretty obvious what the outcome would be.

The blunder commited by Hitler gave the Soviets new hope and also showed them that the Germans COULD be stopped, which heightened the moral quite abit and gave new fighting strenght to the red army.


----------



## parsifal (May 21, 2008)

The Germans suffered enormous difficulties in just getting where they needed to get. For example, some mention was made previously about poor decisions made by Hitler that led to the derailing of the 1941 offensive. Certainlly Hitler was no Napoleon, and he made a lot of mistakes, but not all of the failure of the '41 campaign can be laid at his feet. A popular myth is the decision to send guderains armour south after Smolensk. In fact the decision was made because of reports received from Von Bock, and others about a number of problems at the front. The Infantry had suffered badly during Smolensk, and was down to about 40% rifle strength. It needed time to recover, according to Von Bock, and backed up by Halder (read his diary). The wheeled transport in the Infantry formations wheeled transport, which contained the majority of the French trucks being used by the Wehrmacht was in a porr state of repair, meaning that the distance from the railheads and the overall mobility of the infantry had been reduced markedly since the start of the campaign. The railheads were stuck at Minsk, and would take 6 weeks to advance to Smolensk, the front asa at the end of July. There was nothing anybody could do about that, because the initial planning had envisaged a full soviet collapse by the time of the fall of Minsk. There were simply not the raw materials available to increase the rate of repair after the railheads had reached Minsk. Nor was there the engineering support to make it go faaster. Bock requested, and got, six weeks, in which to refit the Infantry of AGC.

The armour of the Heersgruppe was in relatively good condition. OKH was worried about the activities of isolated Soviet elements in the pripet, and also the lagging progress of AGS who had been held up by a combination of stiffer than expected Soviet resistance, and some localised flooding of the Dnieper. On trecommendation that it was better to do something, rather than nothing, again from OKH, Hitler opted to try and kill two birds with the one stone, by assisting the progress of AGS by shifting the MLA of the armour from Moscow, to Kiev. OKH had durther advised that whilst 2nd abnd 3rd Panzer Gruppes might be able to push onto Moscow, given the weak resistance now in front of AGC following Smolensk, there were strong resrves being readied behind Moscow and a strong likelihood that the German armour would be encircled, and /or suffer enormous casualties. Faced with assessment that were being presented to him at the time, it is hard not agree with Hitlers decision not to divert the armour.

This is just one example of the litany of circumstances that make the argument that the germans could "take out" the Russians a total furphy, at least in the single summer campaign. OKHs original assessment that it would take at least two summers, and probably three, and that was on the basis of weak Soviet resistance. as it happened, Soviet resistance was anything but weak


----------



## Soren (May 21, 2008)

Parsifal you fail to note that the Germans, despite the complete lack of wintercloths actually managed to capture over 90% of Stalingrad. 

And despite allot of men freezing to death, the lack of wintercloths had made sure that over 65 percent of Army Group Center had been ut of the fight just trying to survive the winter. Had the winter clothes been sent the Germans would've had another 600,000 men in the fight and the ones already in the fight would now not have to battle bitter cold, highly increasing their combat effectiveness.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 21, 2008)

Soren, on the scorched earth tactics, what of parsifal's statement:



> when the Caucasian oilfields were captured, in 1942, a German engineering assessment estimated that it would take more than two years of intensive effort, occupying more than half the daily train movements available to Army Group South at the time, to return the oilfields to a very minimal level of production.


----------



## Soren (May 21, 2008)

KK,

This problem would be mostly solved with the capture of Stalingrad. However under the conditions when Stalingrad was still not captured it would've put great strain on the logistics.

I'd like to hear more about this German engineering assessment though.


----------



## syscom3 (May 21, 2008)

And still the French found a way to be more pathetic.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2008)

Parsifal you need to watch yourself. Using such words can be a harsh accusation. I have my differences with Soren and believe he his blinded by his uber bias toward everything German, but he is no Nazi nor does he hold such views.

Soren - As another member told you in your thread with Bill, the way you post can leave it to interpretation, leading some people to believe you are just that.


----------



## parsifal (May 22, 2008)

There are two sources, one primary, one secondary. Primary source is "The Luftwaffes Defeat In The East 1942-3", Joel S Hayward, Kansas University Press 1998. In that book the Dr Schlicht of the _Mineralol Brigade_ is cited as reporting to georg thomas that it would take at least six months just to achieve a monthly return of 4000 cubic meters, and that only 2 of the hundreds of wells captured could be expected to return to production within that period. in Dr Schlichts view, it would be at least 2 years before production was restored , and that would require the substantial movement of specialist equipment and railroad construction and pipelin construction equipment.

In October (I think), the Inspector East of the Deutsches Reichsbahn (State Railways) reported that the amount of equipment needed to undertake the repairs would occupy a very large proportion of the current railway capacity allocated to AGS (I cant be any more specific than that because my research computer, which contains the report is unavailable) to the extent of something like 50% of current allocations.

The proof is in the pudding. The oilfields were captured in August, and were still burning until the end of October. Production was never restored, and their loss in the following March never even entered the OKHs thinking, asa it struggled to save 1st panzer Army and 17th Army, from the Caucasus. Germany never extracted any benefit from the capture of these straegic assets, which was a source of bitter disppointment to the Axis leadership ( I refer you again to Halders Diary, and also Ciano's Diary)


----------



## parsifal (May 22, 2008)

Adler

It was ill considered I agree. However, for the record this is the quote which led to the reaction. To me it is highly infalmmatory and false, and in a way insulting to the Germans who fought and died on the Ostfront. People can judge for themselves as to whether Sorens post is inflammatory or not

_The time it took the Germans to be at the very gates of the city Moscow only serves to illustrate how easily Germany could've won if it hadn't been for Hitler's disasterous decision not to send his troops wintercloths. This idiotic decision by Hitler completely stalled the offensive and hundreds of thousands German soldiers froze to death, and the ones who managed to survive had their combat effectiveness drastically reduced as they both had to fight the cold and Soviets at the same time. That was the break the Soviets had been looking for._


----------



## parsifal (May 22, 2008)

Soren

Sorry for the Nazi slur, but I agree with Adler, this sort of thing can be avoided if you make your posts a bit clearer. That is all I want to say on this issue.

Now, if you want to get back to the discussion, I dont think it was so much Hitlers decisio (although there is evidence that he did withold some winter clothing). This apparently stupid decision needs to be balanced against the absolutley dire supply situation that the Germans found themselves in late 1941. I remember reading somewhere thta Von Bock advised that he needed something like 32 trains per day just to keep AGC in basic supply. From memory, in November they were receiving something like 7 or 8 trains per day. The winter clothing was stuck in Warsaw (I think) with OKH (not Hitler) forced to make difficult choices as to what was shipped to the front, and what was not. They chose to send ammunition and fuel mostly, in an attempt to keep the offensive going. If they had sent the clothing, the offensive would still have stalled, because the ammunition and fuel would not have been available.

The Germans could not attempt to move these winter clothing before that, again because only the bare minimum of supplies were getting through, and because the distribution system from the railheads was so hardpressed as a result of the massive losses in whelled transport (the French and foreign stocks mostly, which accounted for something like 30-40% of availabe parks) By late Otober the Germans were also beginning to slaughter their horse, something they could not afford to do, but were forced to do. Coupled with the very high losses suffered by the Horse transport in November, the Germans situation became almost impossible.

I dont fully blame Hitler for this decision, partly it was the result of decisions by OKH (or at least recommendations), and partly because of the logistic problems that continued to mount throughout the late summer and early autumn


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2008)

Parsifal,

Like I said the lack of winterclothes is all to blame for the failure to capture Stalingrad, the numbers speak for themselves really.

Note that:

1.) ~200,000 German soldiers froze to death
2.) ~600,000 men of Army Group center weren't fighting because of the cold but were resting outside the city trying to survive the winter.
3.) The ones actually in the city fighting had to fight both the cold AND the soviets.

And note that despite the above the Germans managed to capture over 90% of the city. 

So don't you figure that an extra 800,000 or so troops would've made a difference ??


----------



## Freebird (May 22, 2008)

Soren said:


> Parsifal,
> 
> Like I said the lack of winterclothes is all to blame for the failure to capture Stalingrad, the numbers speak for themselves really.
> 
> ...



OK Soren *what time* are you referring to exactly? AFAIK, the initial attack was Nov 19 when the Soviet offensives began, and it was not the bitter cold that would come in Dec. The problem on Nov 19 was not that they were half frozen, but that the German lines were over-extended and OKW was not aware of the Soviet buildup. If the Germans had proper clothes for the bitter winter that was coming I can see them extricating their army, but I don't think they could have taken Stalingrad.

Do you have details of the temperature from Nov 19 -25, the critical time of the initial encirclement?


----------



## parsifal (May 22, 2008)

Hi Soren

You are referring to Stalingrad, which was a battle fought in 1942. I was referring to the '41 campaign mostly.

It is true that winter clothes were not issued to the men fighting in side of Stalingrad, because Hitler wanted to make the troops fight harder (and capture the city before the winter). As far as I know the rest of the front had been issued with winter clothes in time for the winter 42-43. You make reference to Army Group Centre, which had nothing directly to do with 6th Army. The men of Army Group Centre were adequately supplied with winter clothing in 1942. in 1941 they were not, for the reasons I have given in previous posts.
The men of AGC were fully occupied in defensive positions adjacent to Moscow. that had been the situation since the Spring of 1942. This force was in no condition to fight offensively and was at full stretch just trying to face off the opposing Soviet forces in front of Moscow. They had been stripped of most of their transport, and in many case, the divisions had been reduced from a 9 battalion, 3 regiment configuration, to just a 4 battalion, 2 regiment configuration. I am not sure of the exact number, but 600000 would be roughly correct. Facing this number was in excess of 3 million Soviet defenders, far better trained and better equipped, and far better led than they had been in 1941. about 20% of the forces had reached Guard status, which according to contemporary assesments were very nearly the equal of German line Infantry formations, in terms of combat ability. A post war study by the US military assessed the each German soldier in 1941 as being the equivalent of 2.31 Soviet soldiers. By the winter of 1942-3, this advantage had fallen to 1.61:1, with Guard units being rated at 1.34:1. German Pz troops maintained a much better advantage in open warfare.


Whilst there were over 200000 men trapped in the Stalingrad pocket, only 90000 of them were German combat troops. There were 40000 Rumanians included in that total

I must confess, I am still confused by your post. You refer to the capture of Stalingrad in the one breath, and then to AGC in the next, as if AGC were the defenders just outside the city. But this is not the case at all. 
6th Army was under the command of Army Group South, or Army Group Don, depending on the precise time period. There were no significant combat elements behind Stalingrad. The other major combat formations (except for the inneffectual satellite armies) were 1st Panzer and elements of 4th Panzer, and 17th Army, all located to the south (elements of 4th Panzer were in the city I believe). to the north, the first substantial German forces were under the command of 2nd army but these were located north of Voronezh. There were elements of 11th Army around sevastopol, but these formations were still recovering from the mauling they had received in the assault on that city-fortress in June. can you clarify please whether you are talking about 1941 or 1942(late), and whether you are talking about Stalingrad, or Moscow, or both?


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2008)

> A post war study by the US military assessed the each German soldier in 1941 as being the equivalent of 2.31 Soviet soldiers. By the winter of 1942-3, this advantage had fallen to 1.61:1, with Guard units being rated at 1.34:1. German Pz troops maintained a much better advantage in open warfare.



It was much higher than that, even in late 44. German soldiers note right up until the invasion of Germany itself that they sooner ran out of ammunition shooting down hordes of Soviet troops attacking them than they were having trouble facing well trained soldiers.

And again the numbers speak for themselves:

German casualties on the Eastern front (Not counting civilians):
~2.5 million soldiers.

Soviet casualties on the Eastern front (Not counting civilians):
~13 million soldiers, and it is suspected another 2 million have yet to be found or accounted for (A pit with thausands of Soviet corpses was recently found, all of them Soviet soldiers, and none of them accounted for in loss files)

The war in the east was brutal! 

PS: Will address the rest of your post tommorrow.


----------



## Njaco (May 22, 2008)

I have the first snow falling on Stalingrad on 22 Oct. 1942.

also,

Because of the *supply problems and the winter cold*, (my bold)Heeresgruppe A's advance in the Caucasus stopped on 2 Nov. 1942 5 miles short of Ordshonikidse, the southern most point ever reached by the Germans during the war on the Eastern front.

My sources:
The Battle For Stalingrad by Marshal Vasili Ivanovich Chuikov
The Battle For Stalingrad:199 days by Edwin P. Hoyt
Stalingrad by Heinz Schroter
Hitler Moves East by Paul Carell


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2008)

The lack of winter clothing certainly was an issue, however even if the Germans had the required clothing and equipment it would not have changed the following:

1. Russia was a lot bigger than just to the gates of Moscow. The Russians simply would have picked up and pulled east.

2. The Germans would have outrun there supply lines.

3. The Russians had more manpower and were more willing to expend that manpower than the Germans.


----------



## Marcel (May 22, 2008)

Soren said:


> Some people seem unable to understand that with the caucasus oil fields captured the German war machine would suddenly have all the fuel oil it needed, And on top of this with Stalingrad captured allot of the logistical problems would've been solved.
> 
> Sure the Russians could move their industry back into Siberia, but without the caucasus oil fields and against a now well fueled German army the Soviets were doomed to lose, and Stalin knew this.



Yeah, but remember, resources is not only fuel. The main problem for the Germans was not just fuel, it was the casualties. Germany was and is a relatively small country. the 2.5 million lost in the east weighted much more for the German fighting power than the 13 million or so for the Ruskies. And the Ruskies had many more men to spare, while the Germans could only throw old men and Hitlerjugend in the battle at the end of the war.


----------



## renrich (May 22, 2008)

In my opinion the most inept military in WW2 would have to be a tie between France and Italy. As far as overall military prowess is concerned, the US forces with the caveat that the industrial capacity backing up the soldiers and sailors was a big part of the equation, were the most effective.


----------



## parsifal (May 22, 2008)

Soren

I am wondering if your figures for 2.5 million include captured and wounded (and not returned to service). Thereis lot of debate about the figures you are quoting (if that is the source that this figure is derived from). They appear to be based on the reports prepared by OKW for presentation to hitler during the war (the Lage Ost Reports). There is now strong evidence that these reports were innaccurate, the more cynical explanation being that the people responsible were too afraid of him to tell the truth. Guderians chief intelligence officer (Gehlen) was ordered shot when one of his Ostfront situation reports (on which many postwar estimates of Soviet strength were based) were submitted to Hitler for consideration (it now appears likley that Gehlens Intelligence efforts, in the so called "Red Book" reports were shy of actual Soviet strengths by as much as 20%) 

More accurate assessment of German Casualties and manpower availability can be made from the manpower returns from the Ersatz Command, which until July 1944 were under the command of General Fromm. This report was not presented to Hitler, so was a little less susceptible to political interference than the Lage Ost reports. It certainly explains better the real manpower shortages that Germany was experiencing in the latter part of the war. With just 2.5 million casualties, and a population of over 50 millions, there is no need for the Germans to recruit old men and boys into their 9.5 million strong armed forces. To put it in a crude form, the statistics and known facts just dont reconcile to each other

There are some researchers who have placed the actual german casualty lists (of all types , including prisoners, wounded and not returned, MIAs and KIAs) as high as 10 million. I personally dont buy that figure at all. Just basing it on the Ersatz manpower returns, it appears to me that the total casualty bill for Germany is in the region of 5.5 to 6.1 million. A demographic analysis indicates that with this number of casualties, the manpower shortages at the end of the war can be explained.

Whether the US study was correct or not, is not really the point, the point is that throughout 1943 and 1944, the Soviets were able to successfully defeat the germans in the field. The Soviets reached a peak strength of 13.2 million men (including the 1 million plus in the Far east) , whilst the total German armed forces strength was 9.5 million (all forces, all fronts, source Ellis) with a peak eastfront strength of about 6.5 million. This means that in terms of manpower (there are other ways of measuring the advantage, but this is one way), the German advantage was something less than 12.2/6.5, or about 1.87 for the war average. However, with that combat ratio, the Russians won convincingly, so the actual point of equilibrium, ie the point that neither side would win, is less than that number, say 1.3-1.5:1. Because the Panzer troops maintained a marked qualitative advantage right till the end, the comparison of Infantry to Infantry is much closer still. Its anybody's guess what that number might be, but it will certainly be approaching 1.2:1 IMO


----------



## Njaco (May 22, 2008)

Parsifal, what Ellis are you referring?

WWII Data Book by Ellis lists 7,856,600 total killed wounded for the war for Germany, all fronts all forces. Strength was at 17,900,000 for Germany. Are we reading same book?

pg 253 Table 51


----------



## Freebird (May 22, 2008)

Njaco said:


> I have the first snow falling on Stalingrad on 22 Oct. 1942.
> 
> also,
> 
> ...



Thanks Njaco, although it really depends *how* cold it was, snow can fall when the temp is -2 to +2 deg celcius. If it was bitterly cold in the second half of November {- 15 to -25 cel} perhaps it did play a big role. I am referring only to the armies guarding the flanks of Stalingrad, that broke were swept aside in the Soviet offensive. a large # of troops on the north flank were Rumanian, were they not all properly equipped?


----------



## parsifal (May 22, 2008)

same guy, different book I think. My book is "The world war II Databook - Essential facts and figures for All combatants", John Ellis, Aurum Press. it follws on and expands on the statistical analysis he did in "Brute Force". In my reply to Soren I had not consulted the casualty list section of Ellis, perhaps i should have, so thanks


----------



## stasoid (May 22, 2008)

Soren said:


> And again the numbers speak for themselves:
> 
> German casualties on the Eastern front (Not counting civilians):
> ~2.5 million soldiers.
> ...



When you post something like this, please provide a link so we could see where it comes from, otherwhise it's your own BS.

Commonly known figures on the Eastern Front:

Soviet KIA: 6,600,000
Axis KIA: 4,428,000

Ratio: 1:1.5

Soviet POW: 5,200,000 Died in captivity: 3,600,000
Axis POW: 5,450,000 Died in captivity: 824,000

Eastern Front (World War II) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## parsifal (May 22, 2008)

Hi stasoid

I am pretty sure that Soren is quoting figures taken from OKH situation reports to Hitler, which are now hotly debated and very questionable. They are hard to refute because they were the "official" reports to Hitler, and many have used them over the years. However there are other official records that tend to support a much higher casualty rate, and these ar the ones now generally accepted. I am pretty sure that Soren is not going to be one of those people, but we will just have to wait and see what he says


----------



## Njaco (May 22, 2008)

Its the same book, Pars. I thought he may have done a different book. But it shows how stats can flucuate. In the same book, total Axis killed during Eastern front campaign -including Italian, Rumanian, Hungarian and other foreign nations in service - comes to 3,049,520 while total Russian killed is around 11,000,000.

FB, I just gave that as a starting point about the snow. Just as a gauge of when it at least got cold enough. But you're correct, doesn't mean absolute freezing.


----------



## stasoid (May 22, 2008)

parsifal, I know. Especially after Stalingrad, Hitler didnt want to hear anything about casualties on Eastern Front.
I posted a link on Black Cross-Red Star book somewhere in another thread showing how Luftwaffe was trying to hide heavy losses by simply not registring aircrafts shot down by the Soviets.


----------



## Freebird (May 22, 2008)

Njaco said:


> FB, I just gave that as a starting point about the snow. Just as a gauge of when it at least got cold enough. But you're correct, doesn't mean absolute freezing.



Agreed. 

Soren has stated that because the 6th Army did not have cold weather gear, it was incapacitated by cold, and resulted in the huge loss of life.

*On this point I am in complete agreement *

The point I am making is that the flanks of the army were already over-extended, as the OKW fell into Stalin's trap and pulled more German units into the stalingrad 'meatgrinder".

*The key question I have is did the lack of winter clothes contribute to the collapse of the Axis front line {the Rumanian sector} north of Stalingrad?* I think that even proper winter clothes would not have prevented the encirclement.


----------



## stasoid (May 23, 2008)

Germany had a mighty army, experienced, well organized, disciplined. Brave soldiers, best weapon, talanted commanders. Could they win? Even if they got a hold of all oil on Earth and all winter clothing ...?

Russians were fighting on their own soil. Who were those soldiers of the Red Army? They all had different motivations:

Communists - would fight to death because of zero tolerance between two ideologies.
Non-communists but people who truly believed in communist's ideals - would fight until the end.
Patriots, or Russian nationalists - would fight for their land no matter what.
Jews - would fight fearing extermination.
People who lost relatives or friends, simply driven by revenge. (by mid 1942 millions of soviet civilians had already been killed)
People recruited and forced to go to war otherwise facing harsh punishment (basically had no choice but fight)
Ex-convicts who were given a choice to redeem with blood or continue serving their sentences. Those would fight even with bare hands cause had nothing to lose. Experienced ex-combatants, POWs who managed to escape from german captivity were among them.


----------



## parsifal (May 23, 2008)

The reasons you give for fighting are real enough, but to be honest these are not THE reason people tend to fight. The reasons you are quoting are more to do with how people found themselves in the firing line.

THE reason why people fight is much more instinctive, and far less civilized. IT is the urge to survive, the realization that to survive one must kill the enemy, and the best way to do that is to work as a team with your compatriots. And the more effective and tenacious formations like the SS were that way mostly because the bonds if kinship that exist in the small units that form the whole are very strong. A squad or a platoon is a very tribal organization with really only one objective...to survive. But to survive, one must kill the enemy


----------



## parsifal (May 23, 2008)

Hi Njaco

There may be any reason for this low figure...perhaps ellis is using the "official" OKH estimates for that table, perhaps it does not include the prisoners or severely wounded, perhaps it is just wehrmacht figures. I am reasonably certain of my figure of 5.8 million. which is based on the best source I know, the Ersatz Heer manpower returns and casualty lists


----------



## Njaco (May 23, 2008)

No problem. I just wanted to show how figures aren't exactly concrete.

It just occurred to me that the winter clothing issue may be moot. What I mean is that certainly in the Winter 41/42 that it definately was a factor and if IIIRC as the Wehrmacht approached Moskow the first snows started to fall. So the failure to supply with proper clothing would be taken as a factor for that campaign.

But Stalingrad was 42/43. Wouldn't the logistics of that been solved by then?


----------



## Soren (May 23, 2008)

The loss statistics I'm using are the most commonly accepted among experts, however the figure is still to low for the Soviets many argue, and is more in the area of 15.6 million soldiers dead or missing (Not counting wounded, captured or civilians). And recent discoveries of mass graves (Or dumping pits rather) seem to suggest that there's much merit to that opinion.

One thing is clear though, the Soviets lost no less than 12.68 million soldiers dead or missing as confirmed by Soviet loss records, despite the knowledge that much of it is missing. (Hence the often accepted 13.6 million) The total with civilians counted is 29 + million.

Now as for the Germans the figures a quite clear and they lost a total of 3.25 million soldiers dead or missing all fronts combined (Not counting wounded, captured or civilians).


----------



## Soren (May 23, 2008)

Parsifal,

The figures I used are not from the OKH, and AFAIK the OKH actually never made any such estimates. Also the notion that people were afraid to tell the truth is ridiculous really, esp. seeing that the success of any operation relied very much on accurate information. 

One thing that many researchers claim supports the figures I listed mention that looking at the manpower available to Germany vs the USSR only confirms the loss figures.


----------



## parsifal (May 23, 2008)

Hi soren, what Soviet loss records are they. AFAIK the Soviets have never revealed the full extent of their casualties

Anyway, Your figures dont add up to those given in a lot of source material. 

I agree that the casualty figures most commonly accepted in the post war period were those posted by OKH in its situation reports, but for the reasons I have given previously these figures are now generally accepted as suspect (I am referring to the 2.5 million figure you quoted earlier). The more generally accepted figures are those prepred by the Replacement Army, who kept the most detailed (and accurate) records of German mobilzation (and losses) of any german organization during the war.

I can assure you that OKH gave reports on almost a daily basis to hitler, Whether or not they were deliberately falsified is an open question, I admit (but one that has been suggested by other reputable authors, and one that just kinda appeals to me personally), however the facts are that those reports have in the post war analysis been shown as almost certainly in error. Unfortunately, those same numbers in the postwar histories have tended to be accepted more or less verbatim by a lot of researchers, so even if your source is not the OKH records directly, there is a good chance that they are based on them. If you could name and produce your source, we may be able to cross check them for that or any other errors

I have a summary of these reports which are in English (my german is not so good). I have copied a summary page for you to see. It is hard to see, admittedly, but if you read it carefully, you will see the total casualties, from all sources was 6.1 million by wars end. This, incidentally are considered conservative numbers. As I said, there are some sources that take the figures even higher, but I dont buy those figures.

I cant be nearly so sure of Soviet casualties, but my figures are around the 12.2 million, so we are pretty much in agreement, except when you make claims of 15 million plus. There is no real evidence that I know of to support that, although there are some exaggerated claims made by some that have never been substantiated that i am aware of. 

As Njaco points out, establishing a precise figure for casualties is a very difficult task, , and even harder for the Soviets, but in reality the figures you are quoting are not too bad, but still just a little low to be honest. Once we can arrive at some sort of agreed set of numbers, we can move forward with a more detailed analysis


----------



## parsifal (May 23, 2008)

Sorry repeated myself, see the next post


----------



## parsifal (May 23, 2008)

I should have added that the measure of an armies capability is not generally the casualty rates that it sustains, but rather the force structure that needs to achieve a point of equilibrium with an opponent. A very crude, but simple way of doing this is to compare the manpower needed to achieve a point of equilibrium. On the east front the Soviets showed that with a force structure of about 1.87 times that of the germans, they could achieve overwhelming victory. Using some guesswork, that would suggest that the point of balnce is somewhere in the area of 1.4:1, but probably less for the Infantry, for reasons previously given (concerning the superiority of the Panzerwaffe, and quite possiblly the LW as well).


----------



## renrich (May 23, 2008)

I believe that any statistics on WW2 with their origin from the USSR are extremely suspect. The reasons are many fold. First, the Soviet military and political were impossible to separate. At one point in the war it may have been desirable to exaggerate casualties while later the opposite may have been true. Then the authorities might reverse themselves. Today, I suspect that the tendency is to exaggerate casualties and downplay the help from allies. Also, because of disorganisation, especially in the early going, much casualty information was probably inaccurate. I would suspect that German final returns insofar as it was possible are accurate. Studies of combat show that the most important motivating factor in good troop performance is small unit "togetherness" and the concept of "honor." An interesting treatise on the subject is "The Face of Battle," by John Keegan.


----------



## stasoid (May 23, 2008)

There always been a confusion about Red Army vs Vermaht kill ratio. High soviet losses of 10 million total dead (wiki) are combined of two figures: KIA/MIA 6.6 mln + POWs died in captivity 3.6 mln.

The difference is that most of 5.5 mln german POWs made it home at the end but soviet ones didnt. So when you look at the total death of the Red Army you see a huge number of 10 million total loss, but when you count only those killed or missing on the battlefields you got a kill ratio of 1 to 1.5


----------



## parsifal (May 23, 2008)

High Stasoid

I acknowledge your point about the numbers of Soviets killed whilst in captivity, but i am intersted in your 10 million figure for KIAs. Do you have a source other than wiki to back that up. Does Wiki provide any clue on its sources?


----------



## Haztoys (May 23, 2008)

Great thread guys ....On the numbers ...How and why would you stand fast on the casualty rate of the war ...Russia and Germany did not tell all..As I'm sure other countrys padded numbers too...To say the Germans were better do to higher kill rate is very one sided... The Germans way of fighting was high tec and and not the same as the Russians ...The Russians was in mass low tec and keep falling back with land and man power to spare... The Japans way was there own ..The UK had there own ..The USA...and so on .... At times it did work for each country... And at times it did not... All in the same war...

You can't say the German numbers are right ...Do to not wanting to upset Hitler..And with all that was going on at the time with the Germans..I'm sure numbers were low on the list of things...... And nether was the Russians as Stalin did not want the world to know the numbers...And theres books that have the numbers all over the place...

Kill numbers on the eastern front will never be known...I'm sure the German kill numbers are higher ... The way the Russians do war made that happen.. And the German GI was the best in the world at that time...In the end who was the winner..


----------



## stasoid (May 23, 2008)

parsifal, wiki always provides a source of information it publishes.

In this case, for German losses it refers to: 

1 Rűdiger Overmans, Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Oldenbourg 2000. ISBN 3-486-56531-1, Richard Overy The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia (2004), ISBN 0-7139-9309-X

For soviet losses to: Vadim Erlikman, Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke: spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5-93165-107-1; Mark Axworthy, Third Axis Fourth Ally. Arms and Armour 1995, p. 216. ISBN 1-85409-267-7

If you scroll down the page I posted earlier. Those numbers may vary 10-15% but look more realistic.

I also adds that: Total Soviet losses includes Deaths Partisans-250,000 and Deaths Militia-150,000 KIA/MIA above = Killed in action / Missing in action


----------



## parsifal (May 23, 2008)

Thankyou, they sound quite good. Lets wait for Sorens reply


----------



## Soren (May 23, 2008)

Parsifal,

Your guess on Soviet military losses (KIA + MIA, no wounded, POW's or civilians counted) many experts will have no problem with as the figures which pop up mostly are 12.68 million to 13.6 million, so you're close. However the continious discovery of mass grave pits containing unaccounted for Soviet soldiers seems to suggest that the true figure is even higher, up to 15.6 million some experts assume (Although the latter hasn't been forwarded as definite, just an assumption). A definite number which as been given though is by Harper Collins who lists total Soviet soldiers KIA MIA is atleast 14.5 million.

The opinion is that the Soviets have actually downplayed their losses in order to make themselves look as more durable in war, esp. later in the war. This was in part because the Soviets didn't want the US UN to think of them as easy push overs during the cold war, and to strenghten the idea that trying to invade the USSR would fail for anyone.


My sources for the statistics are listed below, but much of what I know comes from debating this issue many times with many VERY knowledgable people at other forums.

One thing which is indeed for sure is that the Soviet losses in terms of KIA MIA fighting against the Germans from 41 to 45 was no less than 12.68 million.

As for German losses (KIA MIA only) it varies extremely little between the trustworthy sources out there from between 3.25 to 3.5 million. Civilian losses range from 2.5 to 3.1 million. The reason for the large variation in civilian casualties is the fact there wasn't held near as closely track of them. 

Sources:
J. Lee Ready 
Harper Collins
Kinder
Encarta
Wallechinsky


----------



## parsifal (May 24, 2008)

Hi Soren

Just putting aside the Soviet numbers for a short while,, the Ersatz heer returns I posted earlier show total killed as 2.0 million, and the total MIAs/captured as 2.4 million, for a total of 4.4 million, so your figures of 3.5 million is close to that figure. The numbers discharged as medically unfit amount to 1.8 million, which brings the total up to the 6.1 million satated in the EH returns. There is a discrepancy therefore of 0.9 million between your figures and those I am quoting. 

If we were to accept the lower figure you are wanting, we would probably have to also accept the lower figures being touted by Stasoid, as the true extent of actual military casualties, ie, around the 10 million mark. this is because as Stasoid and others have pointed out the line between military and non military casualties are not well defined.

Something I have never been able determine is whether the Wehrmacht casualty figures include the Volksturm and other paramilitaries. I know that do include the Volksgrenadier formations, but the VS were not actually part of the regular army 

I believe we might be actually arriving at some point of common ground. i dont know about you, but I am relieved


----------



## Soren (May 24, 2008)

Parsifal remember that the figures I have quoted for both nations covers Soldiers KIA MIA *only*, wounded casualties in POW camps are not accounted for. 

With number of wounded accounted for total German military casualties are around 6.8 million, where'as Soviet military casualties are around 27 million.

Now as to my own personal belief;

Well from many debates with many experts on the subject my figures are as follows:

Soviet military casualties 41-45: 
14.5 million KIA MIA 
13.4 million wounded

On top of this 7.5 million civilians were lost.

German military casualties 39-45:
3.25 million KIA MIA
3.65 million wounded

On top of this were 3 million civilians casualties.


----------



## stasoid (May 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> However the continious discovery of mass grave pits containing unaccounted for Soviet soldiers seems to suggest that the true figure is even higher, up to 15.6 million some experts assume



Discovery of a new mass grave doesnt add anything to the previous statistics because those bodies have already been accounted as Missing In Action. 
My gues is that total body count reflected in those days documents were based on number of men recruited to the army minus those who never came back home.
With Gorbachev's Perestroika soviet WWII archives were opened for more detailed research. As a result of new studies official number of total losses (army + civilians) increased from Stalin's "official" 20 mln to 27 mln generally accepted today.


----------



## parsifal (May 24, 2008)

Stasoid, I calculate that your figures are just a little less than Soren....My God, is it possible, do we have an agreed set of numbers???????


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2008)

stasoid said:


> When you post something like this, please provide a link so we could see where it comes from, otherwhise it's your own BS.
> 
> Commonly known figures on the Eastern Front:
> 
> ...



One thing you have to remember is taht Axis includes all of the Axis forces fighting on the Eastern Front. Not just German forces. It includes the nations of:

Germany
Finland
Romania
Hungary
Italy
Slovakia
Croatia
Bulgaria

as well as Russian, Ukrainian, etc.. that formed units and fought under the German flag.

My understanding however is that Total *German* casualties were aprox. 4,000,000.

*Also please tone down a bit with the flaming. We do not want this thread to be hijacked and eventually closed because people get all worked up and ****.*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2008)

I will tell you what I can do.

I own complete copies of the OKW Diaries. I can peruse through them and see if it give us an "official" statistic for German losses on the East front.

This will take some time however because each volume contains several thousand pages and I will have to balance this time with my work and University studies as well.


----------



## parsifal (May 24, 2008)

Adler

That would be great, and much appreciated. So as to be consistent, the numbers I would be interested in would be KIA, MIA, POW, wounded and not returned to service (or discharged as medically unfit). If it is possible, I would be interested in the numbers lost from all the services that were present on the eastern front, including the paramilitaries, in particular the Volk Sturm. 


Using the above definition of casualties (ie KIA, MIA, POW, and discharged medically unfit), the minor Axis forces suffered approximately the following casualties, whilst in German service (Source Ellis):

Rumanian: 620000
Hungarian: 390000
Italian: 114000
Finland: 223000 (not including the Winter War)

Ellis also lists German and Soviet casualties for the eastern front. however these appear to be using a different standard to the one I want, and appear to have gaps regarding MIAs. But here are the numbers anyway

German: 5913750 (does not include MIAs)

Total Axis Military casualties (eastern front)

7260750

Soviet

Total Casualties (does not appear to include MIAs or wounded)

c11000000 dead, POW c 6000000
Total (not including MIAs or discharged medically unfit)

17000000

If Soviet Discharged Medially Unfit (DMU) are proportionally the same as the German numbers, given in the Ersatz casualty figures, then the the Soviet military casulaties are around 22million. Conversely, based on this source, the German casualty figures also go up, to 7.8 million, not including the minors. 

So, if i were to express the casualties as a range, I would now have to say that eastfront military casualties for the Germans are somewhere btween 6.1 million and 7.8 million, and Soviet military casulaties are somewhere between 10 million (from Stasoid) and 22million (from Ellis). For the moment i am not going to accept Sorens claims for 27 million, because at that number, the Soviets demographically would be unable to field the 13.6 million soldiers that they did at the end of the war. I dont have alternative sources for the minors, so at the moment I am just going to have to accept them. if people feel they have better figures, please speak up.

At the moment, based on averages, that gives us the following approximate figures

Germany: 6.95 Million
Satellites: 1.347 million

Total Axis: 8.297 million 

Soviet: 16.0 million 

I still suspect the Soviet figures are higher than the true numbers, but that is what this set of numbers is saying. 

All this does is show that the figures for East Front casualties are fairly erratic. The more that you dig, the more unclear it becomes

What are peoples opinions?


----------



## Soren (May 24, 2008)

stasoid said:


> Discovery of a new mass grave doesnt add anything to the previous statistics because those bodies have already been accounted as Missing In Action.



No stasoid, they were NOT accounted for, that's the whole point and the reason behind many experts argueing that the total loss of Soviet soldiers is in the area of 15 million.

One needs to keep in mind that the Soviets continiously understated their own losses during the entire war to heighten moral, and even more so after the war. The battle of Kursk is a good example, the Soviets played down their losses in this battle immensly and claimed they fought and won over hundreds upon hundreds of German Tigers, in reality however there were only a mere 10 Tigers present during the entire battle... A far cry from the many hundreds the Soviets claimed were there.

Furthermore the Ferdinand or Elefant which gained a bad reputation because of that battle did in actuality do very well, achieving a 10+ to 1 kill/loss ratio. The only shortcoming of the tank proved to be its lack of an MG. 

And this gross understatement of losses the Soviets continued with throughout the war, and esp. during the latter part of the war. 

In the Battle of Berlin alone the Soviets lost more that 350,000 men (AFTER they had bombarded the city causing most of the Greman casualties), where'as the Germans lost less than 200,000, but on top of that many thousands of civilians were killed by the heavy Soviet bombardment of the city.


----------



## Soren (May 24, 2008)

Parsifal,

The 27 million is including wounded, or actually the number of men treated for wounds by Soviet doctors, so some were more serious than others and many probably went back to fight.

However the total Soviet soldiers KIA MIA is atleast 12.68 million, where'as the number of Germans KIA MIA cannot be any higher than 3.5 million and is most likely around 3.25 million. These are the generally agreed upon facts, a sort of middle ground or Median.


----------



## Soren (May 24, 2008)

> the Soviets demographically would be unable to field the 13.6 million soldiers that they did at the end of the war.



That's untrue Parsifal, the Soviets could very easily have mustered that, just take a look at the population count, this is no small country.


----------



## parsifal (May 24, 2008)

Hi soren

Sorry, i thought you were hinting that the total military casualties were 27 million, ie that there were 27 million not available for service. Based on demographic analysis, i can tell you that such a figure would be impossible, however, if some of the casualties are returned then ther is not as much of a problem. 

The German figure i have suggested is a total figure, so it includes KIAs, MIAs, POWs and DMUs. Your figure of 3.5 million dead isnt really in dispute, but neither is it a total casualty figure. What I am trying to do is to determine the total numbers of troops rendered unavailbe for service, not just the body count. 

On that basis, do you have major disagreement with the numbers suggested?


----------



## parsifal (May 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> That's untrue Parsifal, the Soviets could very easily have mustered that, just take a look at the population count, this is no small country.



err, soren, I do demographic analyses all the time as part of my job. on what basis are you saying that they can suffer 27 million casualties, removed from persons of military age, and maintain essential services at home, and still field a military for of 13.6 million. I can assure you that if they were to lose that many from their miltary force structure, the country could not operate properly, even if it is running under a dictatorship,


----------



## Soren (May 24, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Hi soren
> 
> Sorry, i thought you were hinting that the total military casualties were 27 million, ie that there were 27 million not available for service. Based on demographic analysis, i can tell you that such a figure would be impossible, however, if some of the casualties are returned then ther is not as much of a problem.
> 
> ...



Nope, we are then close to being in agreement actually.


----------



## Soren (May 24, 2008)

parsifal said:


> err, soren, I do demographic analyses all the time as part of my job. on what basis are you saying that they can suffer 27 million casualties, removed from persons of military age, and maintain essential services at home, and still field a military for of 13.6 million. I can assure you that if they were to lose that many from their miltary force structure, the country could not operate properly, even if it is running under a dictatorship,



Parsifal the Soviet Union never really functioned properly.

The reason the Soviets were capable of mustering said amount is that the basic military training delivered was very slim, infact most training was given in combat by more experienced troops. Men were simply drafted in millions, forced to fight for the motherland. 

Also regarding the total amount of wounded, remember this is the amount treated for wounds, undoubtedly many returned to fight, and so the figure of soldiers who were mortally wounded or permanently incapacitated is therefore no doubt much lower.

With that in mind it seems we are in pretty good agreement.


----------



## parsifal (May 24, 2008)

we should wait for others to have their say ( i am eagerly awqaiting Adlers input in particular) before finalizing our collective results on east front casualties. its a pity that we expended all this effort under the banner of such a crappy thread. I was wondering if we should not open a new thread dealing with east front discussion topics. That way we dont have to insult as many frenchmen


----------



## Soren (May 24, 2008)

Good idea.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2008)

You guys could be waiting for quite some time for me! 

Like I said it will take me a while to cut through the OKW diaries because I have a lot of University work I am doing and I also have to balance that school work with my work as well.

I will get to it though. Now having said that, I do not think the OKW diaries are a 100% accurate source as well. I do not think that there will ever be an accurate source for the East Front, not when bodies are still be found today on the former battle fields.


----------



## Trautloft (May 27, 2008)

im glad that hungary isnt listed,so i must not argue with ppl who voted for it


----------



## Ramirezzz (May 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> No stasoid, they were NOT accounted for, that's the whole point and the reason behind many experts argueing that the total loss of Soviet soldiers is in the area of 15 million.


Well Krivosheev includes them as MIA/POW and comes to the overall number of 4455620 of MIA/POW


----------



## parsifal (May 27, 2008)

Ramirrezz

Are you talking about Soviet losses. If so, that seems like a very low number for Soviet MIA/POW losses


----------



## Ramirezzz (May 28, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Ramirrezz
> 
> Are you talking about Soviet losses. If so, that seems like a very low number for Soviet MIA/POW losses




correct, this are the Soviet MIA/POW losses according to Krivosheev (source - Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century", Greenhill Books, London, 1997, G. F. Krivosheev)
. His calculations are based at the total MIA numbers according to archives of MO (ministerstvo oborony - defence ministry), which include also the POWs. 
Now quite true, Parsifal, these numbers are quite different frome those provided by Germans themselfes : so, according to Wehrmacht reports the total number of soviet POWs number is about 5,254,000. But German numers aren't quite reliable especcialy regarding 1941 : Wehrmacht reported 3,890,198 Soviet POWs captured but the OKH itself in its report of 25th December 1941 cut this number by 500,000 and comes to 3,350,639. Other German researchers like Gerns and Dietz give us lower numbers as well: particulary Ditte Gerns mentions 2,835,000 captured in 1941 and 5,254,000 between 1941 and late 1944, which still gives us a significant discrepancy between his and Krivosheev numbers (about 800,000 MIA/POW).


----------



## Ramirezzz (May 28, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Adler
> 
> Soviet
> 
> ...



Parsifal,
as I see, this number of 11 million KIA includes the battlefield KIAs only, could you provide a source for this statement? and the POW number you provided exeeds even the exaggerated Wehrmacht reports.


----------



## parsifal (May 28, 2008)

Hi Ramirrezz

The source for these figures is "The World War II Databook-Essential Facts Figures for all Combatants", Aurum Press (unknown date), by John Ellis

This book was a by product of his earlier work, published around 1995, entitled Brute Force which ascerted that the Allies won by numbers alone, and not by great military prowess.

There are other sources and other people on this thread who are looking at numbers of around 14 -15 million (esp Stasoid). My own belief has always been that Russian losses were about 12.2 million, with an additional 5-6 million captured. 

Soviet losses cannot be worked out on the basis of combat effectiveness, and as far as I know have never been confirmed by the Soviets or the Russian authorities. It is also very difficult to demarcate between military losses and non-military losses, so the results of one researcher another cannot be easily discerned.

Can you give the details of your sources please, so that we can have a closer look at them (perhaps)


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jun 23, 2008)

I assume the source is Krivosheev's "Soviet casualties and combat losses in the twentieth century". I have just ordered this book from my local library and hope to gain some insights. 

It's the holy grail for pro-soviet argumenters because the losses specified there are much lower than what western historians (and I don't mean ex-Wehrmacht generals by this) typically state and it relies only on declassified Soviet archives (which means it relies less on statistical estimates).

The downside: Noone can confirm the numbers. Krivosheev, ex-Soviet Colonel General, was one of a few handpicked Russians who had access to these archives and you have to take his word for it.


----------



## eddie_brunette (Jun 23, 2008)

South Africa by far, we still at war!!


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2008)

well, I am at a loss as to what to do. Here we are with figures for Soviet losses, which each of their proponents say are good. Trouble is one says 27million, the other somewhere about 7 million. These are totally incompataible numbers . I just cannot believe that there can be that much difference between the german and Soviet estimates. 

Does anyone want to suggest anything to try and solve this conundrum????

Maybe my original estimate of 13 million was not so bad after all????


----------



## starling (Jun 23, 2008)

the german people allowed themselves 2 be seduced by a evil,tyrannical,megalomatic regime.shame on them.they could have stopped the war if they wanted.starling.


----------



## Haztoys (Jun 23, 2008)

starling said:


> the german people allowed themselves 2 be seduced by a evil,tyrannical,megalomatic regime.shame on them.they could have stopped the war if they wanted.starling.




I would say they were one of the worst.. But on ww1 they get the blame for some thing they did not start the had a packed to help other countries ...And got sucked into the war .. And took the fall and got the blame..After all these years theres still wrong info about Germany and WW1.. I "think" they had a packed to help Hungary...And Hungary went to war and Germany got sucked into it ...Everyone puts WW1 and WW2 as the same on Germany and it was not ...Now WW2 thats there baby ...From start to finish...

I could be wrong on what country they had the pack with for ww1...If I am let be know...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2008)

starling said:


> the german people allowed themselves 2 be seduced by a evil,tyrannical,megalomatic regime.shame on them.they could have stopped the war if they wanted.starling.



Unless you were alive at that time, I don't think you can judge the German people.

Who are you to shame them? Where you in Germany during that time? Do you know how it was to live in Germany at that time? 

No!

Using your logic I guess we can say Shame on the English people for being seduced by tyrannical kings who suppressed the Irish and Scottish people...

See what I mean?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 24, 2008)

> Now WW2 thats there baby ...From start to finish...



Not in the Pacific...


Agree on the WWI issue; in addition to those statements I'll add that the whole mess of alliances which set he stage for WWI would have led to similar war with similar circumstances reguardless of the initial aggressor.


----------



## Haztoys (Jun 24, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Not in the Pacific...
> .



You are right ... But we were speaking of Germany at the time ...


----------



## carbonlifeform (Jul 22, 2009)

Back to the poll lol...For me it was a toss up between France and Italy. France surrendered when 90% of their military hadn't been in contact with the German forces. For the French, it was more psychological as the Germans did an end run around the vaunted Maginot Line and attakced France through the same area as they did in WW1.
Italy got my vote however, simply because with a relatively modern army, they couldn't even defeat Ethiopia.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 22, 2009)

for true italy defeat ethiopia


----------



## SamPZLP.7 (Mar 12, 2012)

I would say Denmark. They gave up without a fight


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 12, 2012)

But they also arranged for the evacuation of almost their entire Jewish population under the noses of the Nazis. To my mind, the Danes compare very well against the snivelling pandering of leaders in other occupied countries.


----------



## Rogi (Mar 12, 2012)

Where is Yugoslavia ? :O


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 12, 2012)

SamPZLP.7 said:


> I would say Denmark. They gave up without a fight


How does this make Denmark the worst?


----------



## Rogi (Mar 13, 2012)

Oh @$#@# I misread the topic I thought it said the best nation :S in that case...hmm


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 13, 2012)

SamPZLP.7 said:


> I would say Denmark. They gave up without a fight


The Danes surrendered within 2 hours of the start of the invasion, the border guards did resist up to that surrender, 16 of them died.


----------



## VinceReeves (Mar 2, 2013)

Think Italy was the worst. It was obviously an impetuous decision by Mussolini to get involved.

The French were unlucky to be attacked while they were re-equipping - another couple of months and the Luftwaffe would have had a hard time against them.

Besides, if the French Army were so bad, you wonder why the Wehrmacht were so keen to bypass them. I think if the French Army had managed to meet them head-on, they would have given the Germans a beating.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2013)

VinceReeves said:


> Think Italy was the worst. It was obviously an impetuous decision by Mussolini to get involved.
> 
> The French were unlucky to be attacked while they were re-equipping - another couple of months and the Luftwaffe would have had a hard time against them.
> 
> Besides, if the French Army were so bad, you wonder why the Wehrmacht were so keen to bypass them. I think if the French Army had managed to meet them head-on, they would have given the Germans a beating.



The Germans bypassed them because of the ground and natural defenses on the border.


----------



## VinceReeves (Mar 2, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Germans bypassed them because of the ground and natural defenses on the border.



That's true to an extent, but the Wehrmacht philosophy was war of manoeuvre, which was repeated in Russia, the Western Desert etc.

Whenever they were involved in a static battle, their record wasn't particularly impressive (though they were often outnumbered in these situations).

i.e. the French were more out-thought than out-fought.

This is also why the Germans had to put up with so many resistance movements in the territories they conquered. People didn't think they'd really been beaten - their armies had surrendered without really being in battle.


----------



## Marcel (Mar 2, 2013)

VinceReeves said:


> That's true to an extent, but the Wehrmacht philosophy was war of manoeuvre, which was repeated in Russia, the Western Desert etc.
> 
> Whenever they were involved in a static battle, their record wasn't particularly impressive (though they were often outnumbered in these situations).
> 7
> ...


That is a strange thing to say. Doesn't sound true to me. First of all, most people had no clue about the military defeat, they only saw that they now were occupied by the Germans, who seemed to be unstoppable. Yes, they felt being beaten. Seccond, there hardly was much resistance in the first years of the occupation. Things started very slowely, and picked up speed when the allies became stronger and the Germans started to look bleek in Russia. Also the resistance in most countries was not as impressive as it no quite often seems. After the war surely everyone was in the resistance, but the credibillity remains to be seen. Most resistance came from ideology (communists), religion or nationalists approximately in that order.

By the way this thread should be in the silliest question contest.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2013)

VinceReeves said:


> That's true to an extent, but the Wehrmacht philosophy was war of manoeuvre, which was repeated in Russia, the Western Desert etc.
> 
> Whenever they were involved in a static battle, their record wasn't particularly impressive (though they were often outnumbered in these situations).
> 
> ...



And Wehrmacht doctrin at the time dictated how they attacked France. A mobile war had to go around the natural and border defences. The French doctrin was flawed and they were prepared to fight a fortified war like the last one. Sounds to me the Germans had a better tactic. I don't think the outcome would have been any different.

One thing is for sure though, it wasn't because the Germans were afraid to fight the French army head on.

Also I think Marcel is a bit more correct in his assessment.


----------



## VinceReeves (Mar 2, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And Wehrmacht doctrin at the time dictated how they attacked France. A mobile war had to go around the natural and border defences. The French doctrin was flawed and they were prepared to fight a fortified war like the last one. Sounds to me the Germans had a better tactic. I don't think the outcome would have been any different.
> 
> One thing is for sure though, it wasn't because the Germans were afraid to fight the French army head on.
> 
> Also I think Marcel is a bit more correct in his assessment.


 
We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I think the "Blitzkrieg" style of mobile warfare is to some extent a false economy. It _looks_ very impressive with lots of quick, resounding victories, but the victor ends up owning a lot of territory with restless populations, and a large amount of demobilised soldiers who don't feel that they've been beaten. A large proportion of the French army heard of the Armistice without even seeing a single German soldier.

The Coalition had the same problem after the Iraq War - they beat the "official" Iraqi army very quickly by by-passing them, but they had the same problem that many of the demobilised Iraqi soldiers became insurrectionaries.

At the end of WW2 the Germans had the opposite experience - the Allies gradually ground them down in a comparatively unsophisiticated way, but there was no doubt that their Army had been beaten.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 2, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> The Danes surrendered within 2 hours of the start of the invasion, the border guards did resist up to that surrender, 16 of them died.



But the Danes managed to evacuate the vast majority of Jews without handing them over to the Nazis. In October 1943, the Danish Government had received a demand to hand over all Jews within Danish territory. The plucky Danes refused and managed to evacuate more than 8,000 Jews, almost the entire Jewish population, to safety in Sweden. Contrast this with Vichy France which started handing over Jews to the Nazis before they were asked to do so...I don't think Denmark is even close to the worst nation!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2013)

VinceReeves said:


> We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I think the "Blitzkrieg" style of mobile warfare is to some extent a false economy. It _looks_ very impressive with lots of quick, resounding victories, but the victor ends up owning a lot of territory with restless populations, and a large amount of demobilised soldiers who don't feel that they've been beaten. A large proportion of the French army heard of the Armistice without even seeing a single German soldier.
> 
> The Coalition had the same problem after the Iraq War - they beat the "official" Iraqi army very quickly by by-passing them, but they had the same problem that many of the demobilised Iraqi soldiers became insurrectionaries.
> 
> At the end of WW2 the Germans had the opposite experience - the Allies gradually ground them down in a comparatively unsophisiticated way, but there was no doubt that their Army had been beaten.



How is it false? You defeat your enemy as quickly as possible. That is the modern way to wage war. 

Also the insurgency in Iraq can not be compared. The majority of the insurgents were not former soldiers. At least not from my experience there.


----------



## VinceReeves (Mar 2, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How is it false? You defeat your enemy as quickly as possible. That is the modern way to wage war.
> 
> Also the insurgency in Iraq can not be compared. The majority of the insurgents were not former soldiers. At least not from my experience there.



Well, the point I'm making is that the modern way generally isn't very successful when trying to hold somebody else's territory. There's a belief that wars can be won quickly and cheaply by mobility or technological superiority, but it rarely works out that way. I think you have to beat the enemy decisively in open battle in the traditional way.

Even in pre-modern war the same principle applies. Napoleon had to be decisively beaten in open battle before France finally admitted defeat. The mobile warfare of the Peninsula War, and the Retreat from Moscow weren't convincing enough.

As for insurgencies, they don't have to be big to be effective, and what demobilised members of the military can add is expertise, structure etc. to any insurgency.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 2, 2013)

VinceReeves said:


> ...The Coalition had the same problem after the Iraq War - they beat the "official" Iraqi army very quickly by by-passing them, but they had the same problem that many of the demobilised Iraqi soldiers became insurrectionaries...


Actually, in this case, the majority of insurgents were foreign nationals stirred up and recruited to fight the coalition forces...they came from Jordan, Syria, Chechnia, Saudi Arabia and a whole long list of other muslim countries...


----------



## Readie (Mar 3, 2013)

If any thread was guaranteed to end up in a row this is it.
We all know, in our hearts of hearts what the answer is....curse the carrier pidgeon killing hawks of the Isles of Scilly. Read 'Double Cross' and you will see what I mean.

I nominate this thread as the, how do you say? 'Dumbest thread...'

Cheers
John


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 3, 2013)

Dunno John, this thread has managed to last for almost 10 years without becoming a fist-fight...lol

Personally, I think Egypt should be the worst...

Why? You ask?

Simple, they were one of the largest, oldest, most powerful dynasties on earth and they let it fall into ruin. Talk about government mis-management


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 3, 2013)

Readie said:


> If any thread was guaranteed to end up in a row this is it.
> We all know, in our hearts of hearts what the answer is....curse the carrier pidgeon killing hawks of the Isles of Scilly. Read 'Double Cross' and you will see what I mean.
> 
> I nominate this thread as the, how do you say? 'Dumbest thread...'
> ...



Well if you go and read the thread you woukd see thst it is based solely off of military, not ideology or whether a country was "bad" or "evil". It was about military ability, might, capability and strategy...


----------



## Marcel (Mar 3, 2013)

Still it is a dumb question in my eyes. How do you define 'worst'? Is it Denmark who only put up a 'pathetic' 2 hours of resistance? The Netherlands who could not hold the Germans for 5 days? France who couldn't fulfill it's promises because they did not catch up with new ideas? Britain who were only lucky enough to have a sea between them and Germany? Germany because they didn't know when to quit? The USA because it was totally unprepaired and they should bless their stars even more because of the oceans between them and their enemies. Russia because they sacrificed more man than anyone? 

What do we consider bad? Is it not bad because luck helped and they finally came on top (US, UK, USSR)? That's very unfair. Who dears to deem himself wise enough to make a judgment? I certainly don't.

(Sorry for the rant, it's been a long day).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 3, 2013)

Oh I agree Marcel.


----------



## cherry blossom (Mar 3, 2013)

I must admit that I have not read through this entire thread but I feel that I can make some observations, especially as there have been similar threads on other boards. 

The first is that, if you exclude the generals, the French cannot claim to be the worse fighting men of WW2. A good illustration would be the Battle of Stonne in May 1940. This village changed hands 17 times over three days Stonne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Another example from the same period would be the Battles of Hannut Battle of Hannut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Gembloux Battle of Gembloux (1940) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. These battles pitted strong French and German forces against each other head on and were bloody draws. Of course, the German Army was actually much better than the French as its generals normally arranged to outflank and surprise their enemy. 

1940 also brought a direct clash between the French and Italians in the Alps. The French won. However, the terrain probably strongly favoured the French. It is also worth pointing out that the French air force was much stronger than the Italian in May 1940.

A little later, the French put up fairly strong resistance to Britain in Syria and even managed to keep the fighting going for six months in Madagascar.

One can also find examples of the Italians fighting hard in WW2. The Battle of Keren Battle of Keren - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is an example. The activities of the Italian frogmen and MS boats are also notable. Italian submarines such as the Leonardo da Vinci Italian submarine Leonardo da Vinci - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia could also cause problems for their enemies.

The Danish forces cannot be blamed for simply obeying their instructions.

Thus I want to propose those famous warriors the Iraqis Anglo-Iraqi War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for the honour of worse forces of WW2. They were to develop and extend this fame, starting with their role as the worse forces of the Arab-Israeli wars etc.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 3, 2013)

Sorry you've had a bad day, Marcel and I agree about your comments...you can't actually pick a "bad" country based on circumstances beyond it's control.

Obviously, a small nation with limited resources (funding dictates equipment) and manpower (small nation = small military)will not withstand the onslaught of a larger, better equipped army. Even large nations didn't fare well (China comes to mind here).

Some countries decided it was better to capitulate because it was hoping it would spare it's citizens from a bloody, destructive invasion. In some cases, it worked. In others, it was devestating, but this was the chance they took. Then again, some small countries decided to stick it out and won the gamble (prime example = Finland) and some didn't (Poland).

Looking back, it's easy to make assumptions and offer opinions but at the time, it was a terrifying time for governments and citizens alike.


----------



## VinceReeves (Mar 3, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> Actually, in this case, the majority of insurgents were foreign nationals stirred up and recruited to fight the coalition forces...they came from Jordan, Syria, Chechnia, Saudi Arabia and a whole long list of other muslim countries...



Well, that's true, but what I'm trying to get at is what anthropologists call "charismatic authority". It just seems to be a historical constant that people never seem to be impressed when they are conquered by "smartness", be it greater mobility or technological superiority. This goes back to the Teutonic tribes who kept resisting the Romans who were more organised and had better weapons.

No matter where the insurgents came from, the Coalition lacked "charismatic authority" in Iraq - otherwise the Iraqis themselves wouldn't have tolerated the presence of foreigners from Jordan, Syria etc. It's the same with the Germans in WW2 - they had to cope with uprisings in almost every country they conquered.

I think the picking on the French in this thread (and I'm not French myself), which is evident in the poll results, is unfair - they weren't directly out-fought by the Germans, they were bypassed by an innovative military technique based on comparatively new technology (the internal combustion engine) that appeared to pay enormous early dividends, but left the winner with an indefensible burden.

The idea that this is a "good" way to wage war that should be imitated explains why Western armies have had such a hard time since the end of the Second World War.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 3, 2013)

Well, in all actuality, the U.S. (and coalition forces) waged an exact copy of a true blitzkreig against Hussein's forces.

This overwhelmed the Iraqi military, resulting in a quick and decisive victory against thier military. This was the main objective and it worked perfectly against forces that were expected to put up a serious resistance. The aftermath of the Iraqi defeat was expected to be an orderly one where the new government and infrastructure would be established quickly. Because of religious extremism, the insurgents became a stumbling block to the ultimate goal of establishing the above-mentioned government and infrastructure.

The difference here between the German victory over countries like France and the Coalition victory over Iraq, was the Germans intended to stay there and were not worried about how they were going to keep the peace there. The coalition troops on the other hand, did not plan on staying there since thier goal was to remove Hussein and his posse and give the country back to the Iraqis, leaving as soon as that had been accomplished.

The main lure of the insurgents to that region, was pretty much an exciting chance to kill Americans for whatever reason they had been told by thier religious leaders and such, although they ended up killing not only Americans and coalition personnel, but plenty of Iraqi citizens along the way. Here too is a difference between the German occupation of France and the coalition forces of Iraq. The mobs of insurgents were killing everyone in the name of thier religion while the organized French resistance was primarily targeting Germans for the liberation of thier nation.

Two different wars with two different outcomes as a result of similiar successful offensive tactics.


----------



## VinceReeves (Mar 3, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> Well, in all actuality, the U.S. (and coalition forces) waged an exact copy of a true blitzkreig against Hussein's forces.
> 
> This overwhelmed the Iraqi military, resulting in a quick and decisive victory against thier military. This was the main objective and it worked perfectly against forces that were expected to put up a serious resistance. The aftermath of the Iraqi defeat was expected to be an orderly one where the new government and infrastructure would be established quickly. Because of religious extremism, the insurgents became a stumbling block to the ultimate goal of establishing the above-mentioned government and infrastructure.
> 
> ...



Ah, the racist nonsense that everyone from the Middle East is a crazy religious fundamentalist towel head. Especially if they don't like the Coalition.

I'm wasting my time here.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 3, 2013)

For me its a toss up between the three axis powers. In the case of Germany and Japan they had efficient military organizations, and tactical victories followed their armed forces because of that efficiency. However, each of them made numerous and in the end fatal strategic errors of judgement that ultimately lost them their wars.

In the case of the Italians, they never really possessed significant militry strength. However they misclaculated the progress of the war and its likley outcome. They would have been far better to try and remain neutral selling arms and supplies to both side whilst slowly recovering their economic and military strength.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 3, 2013)

VinceReeves said:


> Ah, the racist nonsense that everyone from the Middle East is a crazy religious fundamentalist towel head. Especially if they don't like the Coalition.
> 
> I'm wasting my time here.



Wow, so someone had a different view or opinion, and your time is being wasted? Also where did he say the things you are accusing him of? Just Wow!

You don't have very many conversations with people do you.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 3, 2013)

we should not enter the realm of current affairs, because that can easily transform to a political debate


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 3, 2013)

It always does...


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 3, 2013)

VinceReeves said:


> Ah, the racist nonsense that everyone from the Middle East is a crazy religious fundamentalist towel head. Especially if they don't like the Coalition.
> 
> I'm wasting my time here.


Ouch...wow...I never made a racist slur like that...however, after the official surrender of Iraqi forces, the coalition troops weren't fighting shopkeepers, sheep herders, and angry telivision repairmen...if by chance, you have an opportunity to do a little reading about that conflict, you may notice that the insurgents were of a regional religious orientation. Now while I was making my comparison between the French-German and Iraqi-coalition situations, I was doing so in the same spirit as we do about the American Civil War or WWI, WWII, Korea and so on.

If I mislead you into assuming there was racism or a political slant, then I apologize for subliminally placing those terrible and slanderous ideas into your head.



parsifal said:


> For me its a toss up between the three axis powers. In the case of Germany and Japan they had efficient military organizations, and tactical victories followed their armed forces because of that efficiency. However, each of them made numerous and in the end fatal strategic errors of judgement that ultimately lost them their wars.
> 
> In the case of the Italians, they never really possessed significant militry strength. However they misclaculated the progress of the war and its likley outcome. They would have been far better to try and remain neutral selling arms and supplies to both side whilst slowly recovering their economic and military strength.



Great point about Italy, Parsifal...they really didn't perform well in North Africa and created more of a mess than anything.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 3, 2013)

VinceReeves said:


> Ah, the racist nonsense that everyone from the Middle East is a crazy religious fundamentalist towel head. Especially if they don't like the Coalition.
> 
> I'm wasting my time here.



Wow, talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill! Can you show me where GG said "everyone from the middle east" was a crazy insurgent? Oh, he didn't. Yeah, I guess you are wasting your time here....


As for France, it wins in my opinion not so much for the individual reasons but for its actions as a whole. Boasting of the Maginot line and ignoring all else. The hap-hazard way it treated the BEF. The vicious way it reacted to the British for Dunkirk. Just everything the French did and acted about the war was a huge face-palm. Yes, her troops fought gallantly at times and the Air Force did what it could but as a WHOLE, France was the worst in the war.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 3, 2013)

To be honest, I think this entire thread is asking a rather pointless question. There were many, many evil men who made the most of the totalitarian regimes of the Axis to promote their vile agendas. Equally, for all the rhetoric of fighting for freedom, there were undoubtedly men on the Allied side who committed atrocities (albeit more likely as individual incidents not as a matter of policy). 

I'm minded to agree with Sgt Buster Kilrain in the film 'Gettysburg', "The thing is, you cannot judge a race. Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit. You take men one at a time."


----------



## parsifal (Mar 3, 2013)

Its got nothing to do with race or even the individuals when it comes to determining if the Axis were guilty of crimes against humanity and waging unlawful aggressive wars. We are not passing judgement on the people as a whole, which kinda neatly explains why only the Nazi ringleaders (or what was considefred the ringleaders) were ever put on trial after the war (there were other resons as well, like the political fallout arising from the question of unrestrictedwere submarine warfare, or the vexing question of Soviet collaboration pre-June 1941). 

This is the deal. The difference between the allied nations and the Germans (and Japanese) is that the allies did not systematize racial or military abuse (well, provided you dont includde a few misdemeanours like incarceration without trial of ethnic Japanese Americans). There were numerous examples of allied attrocities, but inherently therse were criminal acts. If you were caught shooting a prisoner, or raping a civilian, you were, at least in theory, guilty of a crime, and should, in theory face the courts martial that your military system entailed. There were some pretty close exceptions to that, such as the Russian Army's behaviour immediately after the war, but even heree there was a system in place to theoretically prevent that....what attrocities that did occur were officially denied by the Red Army 9of course they lied a lot i know). But contrasting to this was the outrightly criminal behaviour of the Germans and the Japanese. There was no statutory crime in killing a Russian POW, or an Allied prisoner in Changi Gaol. Thats the difference in the criminality of the Axis on one hand, and the individual actts of bastardry by the allies on the other.

And this has nothing to do with whether the axis were worse or better in their military and strategic operations. It is merely a question of which nation was acting criminally, and which nations were operating within the parameters of the law.

and before we even go there, bombing of civilan enemy targets despite all the hype, was not a crime against humanity in 1945.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 3, 2013)

I entirely agree Parsifal. I just don't see the point of posts like "Well the Danes didn't put up much of the fight so they must have been the worst". If we exclude such nonsense then we're left with the Axis and the Allies...and that's pretty much a no-brainer. That said, as we've discussed on other threads, there were individuals on the Axis side who behaved honourably, often at extreme personal risk to themselves, despite the horrors perpetrated by their totalitarian regimes.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 3, 2013)

Perhaps a better question would be which nation ( or leaders?) achieved the least military result with most military resources? 

Lets all the small nations (like the bottom eight on the list) off the hook which is as it should be. 

Granted Italy should not even be held to the same standard as the US or Russia but at least it was a major player in the 30s (or tried to be). 

Since the war lasted almost 6 years some countries had the chance to redeem themselves and some did not. Russian performance in 1940-41 being pretty dismal considering the size (in numbers) of their army and air force. Certainly no better than the French except the Russians had a lot more distance for the Germans to chase them over. 
Russian command got a lot better later and there was never any question as to the individual soldiers bravery. 

Many commanders/generals/politicians made bone headed decisions. Wars are very seldom lost by the the guys in the trenches/fox holes failing to fight well while the generals make all the right decisions


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 3, 2013)

VinceReeves said:


> Ah, the racist nonsense that everyone from the Middle East is a crazy religious fundamentalist towel head. Especially if they don't like the Coalition.
> 
> I'm wasting my time here.



Well. If you wish to not debate on the field of facts, take your membership elsewhere.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 4, 2013)

Stalin really hampered any qualified military leadership during mobilization because of his earlier purges of the experienced general staff and then purged it again after Finland gave the Soviet Union a black eye...

China, which could have been a powerhouse with it's manpower and raw material potential, was torn apart by fuedal warlords and lack of a cohesive government.

Most of the countries (large and small) were still dealing with poor economies that had been recovering from the 20's and 30's. This meant a shortage of modern equipment, or equipment that was still woefully out of date.


----------



## Marcel (Mar 4, 2013)

After a night sleep I thought up a "worst". I nominate the Japanese military and political leaders. Any authority who sends it's boys to desolate places like New Guinea without any supplies whatsoever, let them fight a brutal war and then when things turn nasty just abandon them to their faith is a good contender. Especially since they brainwashed the boys so they would not have the escape route to be POW. It's the only way I can see anything to be 'worst'.

@vicereeves, chill out. You made some comments on which many here don't agree. It's actually an interesting theory. I did counter it with my ideas and instead of ignoring that, why not try to prove it wrong with facts? It surely is much better than calling names, which seems to be the habit on internet these days. That's usually how we do things here.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 4, 2013)

> China, which could have been a powerhouse with it's manpower and raw material potential, was torn apart by fuedal warlords and lack of a cohesive government.



Id have to add, its near total lack of access to weapons and trained manpower, "lack of coherent government" just doesnt cut it for me.....rampant our of control corruption is probably a better way to describe the situation in China


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 4, 2013)

The comment about "lack of coherent goverment" is a huge understatement, actually...it was simply condensed, but the long version is a completely corrupt and out of touch Imperial government that allowed poverty to grip it's realm and warlords to run rampant, virtually unchecked. At a time when the rest of the world was passing into a mature industrial age, it was slipping backwards.

The chaos was so bad, that I doubt seriously that had they heeded the early warning signs of Japan's intentions and tried to mobilize, it would have done any good.


----------



## Readie (Mar 4, 2013)

Well if you go and read the thread you woukd see thst it is based solely off of military, not ideology or whether a country was "bad" or "evil". It was about military ability, might, capability and strategy... 

Fair comment Chris. 
I did realise that and there are, and usual, some good points raised.
Perhaps the 'worse' may be a peception depending upon experiances.
I'm sure the Burma Star boys would only have one candidate !
Cheers
John


----------



## Tante Ju (Mar 4, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Its got nothing to do with race or even the individuals when it comes to determining if the Axis were guilty of crimes against humanity and waging unlawful aggressive wars. We are not passing judgement on the people as a whole, which kinda neatly explains why only the Nazi ringleaders (or what was considefred the ringleaders) were ever put on trial after the war (there were other resons as well, like the political fallout arising from the question of unrestrictedwere submarine warfare, or the vexing question of Soviet collaboration pre-June 1941).



Nope, essentially everyone in German political or economical life prosecuted after the war by the Allies, regardless of being a 'nazi ringleader' or no. The Krupp trials were the most infamous, and quite typical. Many though not all were simply showcase trials in Soviet fashion. They were sentenced to long imprisonment after the war, and released very soon after things went sour with the Soviets. Former 'nazi' industrialists went back to business and former 'nazi' officiers went back to command NATO troops (and I am not saying all, because quite a number of those guys sentenced truely deserved to hang).



> This is the deal. The difference between the allied nations and the Germans (and Japanese) is that the allies did not systematize racial or military abuse (well, provided you dont includde a few misdemeanours like incarceration without trial of ethnic Japanese Americans).



Well unless you consider the systematic murder of apprx. 1 million German and Japanese civilians (and many more wounded) by aerial bombings of course a bit more than some sort misdemeanors....



> There were numerous examples of allied attrocities, but inherently therse were criminal acts. If you were caught shooting a prisoner, or raping a civilian, you were, at least in theory, guilty of a crime, and should, in theory face the courts martial that your military system entailed.



In theory yes, but practice Allies just tended to look the other way when PoWs were shot or civillians were raped. There were several high profile cases, apart from the regular rapes and pillage that came with any army. Unfortunately, if you implement a system only in theory and do not enforce it in practice to prevent soldiers running amok is not a very good defense and may be very well a basis of criminal neglect for those responsible making the soldiers behave more or less in civilized manner.



> There were some pretty close exceptions to that, such as the Russian Army's behaviour immediately after the war, but even here there was a system in place to theoretically prevent that....what attrocities that did occur were officially denied by the Red Army 9of course they lied a lot i know).



The Russian Army raped and pillaged millions. It would be unfair to say that even the Red Army completely tolerated these, but as a routine they tolerated it to some extent. Order was sooner or later restored after a while (sometimes rather brutally).



> But contrasting to this was the outrightly criminal behaviour of the Germans and the Japanese. There was no statutory crime in killing a Russian POW, or an Allied prisoner in Changi Gaol. Thats the difference in the criminality of the Axis on one hand, and the individual actts of bastardry by the allies on the other.



Unfortunately for your thesis, this is incorrect. The German army at least had military tribunals who have sentenced a lot of their own soldiers to imprisonment or death for war crimes. I can't comment on the Japanese Armies code of conduct except that it doesn't strike me in particular that US forces in the PTO were particularly bound by humatarian considerations gainst the enemy which American propaganda and indeed much of the US considered similarly sub-human as the Germans considered the "bolsheviks". Their habit of collecting Japanese solider's heads as souvenirs tells me that there may have been other issues with humanitarian conduct of war on both sides in the PTO...



> And this has nothing to do with whether the axis were worse or better in their military and strategic operations. It is merely a question of which nation was acting criminally, and which nations were operating within the parameters of the law.



None operated within the parameters of the law, period.



> and before we even go there, bombing of civilan enemy targets despite all the hype, was not a crime against humanity in 1945.



Given that most Axis war criminals were sentenced by Allied courts based on crimes which weren't even a crime before 1945, applying a very controversial legal practice of creating a crime _after _ someone has committed it, I am not sure how much that that arguement would help Harris and other Allied war criminals. None of them were ever even tried, of course.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 4, 2013)

There is a thead for discussion of war crimes and the war crimes trials. this is not the place to discuss this. you should show some resepect to the thread by not discussing issues that are off topic. I know I made some comments, and I know you dont agree with them. But I was trying to get the discussion back onto the topic of "worst nation militarily". What the heck are you doing?

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/war-crimes-trials-effective-23907-2.html


----------



## Tante Ju (Mar 4, 2013)

I agree this thread is not the thread to discuss war crimes. Because of that, I wonder why you brought up it in the first place in a very provocative manner, and second, why you are blaming it on others and claiming that you were "just trying to get back to the core of the discussion" which is blatantly untrue?! 

Take your own advice and do not start sidetracking threads with your usual war crimes and guilty nations theories.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 4, 2013)

I didnt bring it up . Someone else did. Read the post I made, you will see I am exhorting people to get back on topic.

Here is another link to another thread that you could have a read of
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/ordinary-germans-responsibility-holocaust-18540-10.html



This is another

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/battle-nanking-26567-9.html
As for me starting this side debate, what a load of cobblers....its been an issue in this thread for quite a whiile, and culminated in Buffnuts comments, which preceded my own. Not that he was trying to inflame anything, in fact he agereed with me that the national criminality of Germany had nothing to do with its battlefield performance. 

I dont make any apologies to you or anyone for holding those responsible for war crimes to account. Im no angel and I ive done my fair share of head kicking for my country in my time. But there is a fine line of difference between lawful violence and cold blooded murder and national genocide. If you read the link I posted, you will see a wide range of differing views on this very subject. I dont think you are going to enjoy my comments, but then, ther is always the ignore button if you feel that way


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 4, 2013)

Come on guys, don't eff up a good thread by pointing out ho someone else is getting off topoc and then slipping in the same stuff...

Ignore the war crime, racial, political point of views or counter-views (God knows I've been tempted) and get back into the spirit of the discussion


----------



## Readie (Mar 4, 2013)

I have been wondering whether Britain's policy of appeasement and America's standing by while Hitler over ran large parts of Europe would qualify both countries as a candidate?
Bearing in mind that a lot of American's were closely linked to Europe at the time and both countries leaders must have known that Hitler would never stop.
I know about 'buying time' but, that came at a cost.

What do you think?

Cheers
John


----------



## cherry blossom (Mar 4, 2013)

I think that I should start by apologising if my mention of Iraq in http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/wich-worst-nation-war-277-38.html#post991672 set off an avalanche. I was trying to make a case that the French fought fairly well. However, I do understand Shortround6's idea


Shortround6 said:


> Perhaps a better question would be which nation ( or leaders?) achieved the least military result with most military resources?
> 
> Lets all the small nations (like the bottom eight on the list) off the hook which is as it should be.
> 
> ...snip...


and judged on that criteria, perhaps the senior French generals were the worse. Certainly they were impressively bad. However, the equipment and the first line units were not bad. Unfortunately, the generals placed reservists at the decisive point.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 5, 2013)

Gents, don't eff up this thread. Parsifal and Tante Ju, end it now. You know the next moderator action. 'Nuff said.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 5, 2013)

Sorry Matt but I'm closing this before this gets any worse and people start being forcefully told to leave. It was a bad question in the first place and just opened up alot of worms. Its closed.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 6, 2013)

No problems from me. Right decision.


----------

