Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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 go and find another forum. Especially when he hold the members of this forum (including myself) in such high regards.
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.You're implying this level of incompetence is unique only to the French. I beg to differ.
Is it me or didn't he count right, it was 5 days and the army wasn't defeated at that time.I have to unfortunately go with my dear ol' Netherlands. We capitulated in 4 () days!!!
Actually the LVA shot down about 40 planes, the rest was by anti A/C and landing on the wrong fields by the GermansExcuse 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.
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.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.
I always thought it was RotterdamAlso the utter destruction of The Hague (after the surrendering!)
ps... know your history!
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 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
Now, I'm moving on to another thread.
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.
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
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.
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
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
I just saw this thread, after it went on for 28 pages.
So, how do you define "worst" ?
Charles
I reckon it was france cus they had the opportunity of invaded Germany.
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...
[/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 think that the men of the 101st Airborne at Bastogne would not agree with that statement.
TO