Wich was the worst nation in the war?

[Haztoys]

Not in the Pacific...
.

You are right ... But we were speaking of Germany at the time ...

 

[carbonlifeform]

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]

for true italy defeat ethiopia

 

[SamPZLP.7]

I would say Denmark. They gave up without a fight

 

[buffnut453]

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]

Where is Yugoslavia ? :O

 

[GrauGeist]

I would say Denmark. They gave up without a fight

How does this make Denmark the worst?

 

[Rogi]

Oh @$#@# I misread the topic I thought it said the best nation :S in that case...hmm

 

[tyrodtom]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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
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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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