Wich was the worst nation in the war? (1 Viewer)

Wich was the worst nation in the war?

  • Total voters
    82

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...
...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.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the over French 92,000 KIAs all died 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.
 
freebird said:
Like any forum Arsenal, there are a whole spectrum of people, from ignorant to open-minded.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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
 

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.
Click to expand...

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.

 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 

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....
 
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.
 
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.
 

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.
 
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.
 

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
 

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.
 

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
 
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.
 

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
 

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
4K
SaparotRob
A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
27
Views
7K
Shortround6
S
  • Poll
Worst ww2 fighter
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
34K
Mad Dog
M
  • Poll
Which aircraft was the better Russian bomber?
Replies
5
Views
5K
GrauGeist
  • Poll
Which was better
Replies
5
Views
2K
Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV
Menu
Log in
Register