Wich was the worst nation in the war?

[Freebird]

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]

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]

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}

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]

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]

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]

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:

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.

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.

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.

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

I always thought it was Rotterdam

ps... know your history!

You and the other guy obviously don't

 

[Freebird]

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]

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

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]

Now, I'm moving on to another thread.

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

 

[Arsenal VG-33]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

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....

[/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]

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]

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.