Wich was the worst nation in the war?

[GrauGeist]

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]

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

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]

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]

Oh I agree Marcel.

 

[cherry blossom]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

we should not enter the realm of current affairs, because that can easily transform to a political debate

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It always does...

 

[GrauGeist]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.