Wich was the worst nation in the war?

[Marcel]

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.

I understand how you feel. I was just explaining the sentiment here in this thread and where it comes from.
Never fully realized by most people is the role, the French resistance played during the war. Many fugitive, being either resistence themselves, allied pilots or other refugees owe their life to many of those brave Frenchmen.

Although IMHO the French cannot be fully proud on their achievements in WWI (just like my own country), I would never say France was the worst. Maybe they were, but no more than any other country in 1940. Blaming them for the quick defeat is not fair. The same is for those specific individual Americans who claim they "single handedly having won the war", which you see very often in this thread and in some others as well. NAZI Germany was demolished stone for stone, one bit at the time by many countries including France.

 

[Njaco]

I think parsifal is right. With this kind of question there are so many variables.

It is hard to be objective with so many personal reasons as well.

 

[syscom3]

The wording for the title of this thread should read "most inept".

As many people have mentioned, the French deserve the ranking of being the most inept. In 1939 they were a preeminent military power. They were well equiped with good weapons and had lots of manpower.

But they were also very poorly led and followed strategic and tactical doctrine that was a one way road to defeat. That is what led them to defeat so fast.

DeGaul and LeClerc showed what was possible, but it was far too little and far too late.

Britain and the US had their share of blunders but it never altered the basic calculus of the war.

Same with Germany and Russia.

 

[parsifal]

Britain and the US had their share of blunders but it never altered the basic calculus of the war.

This is not a valid measure of ineptitude. The fact that the allies controlled something like 70% of the worlds productive power enabled them to make mistakes of monumental proportions and still recover. The mistakes are legion, the stand out for me being Admiral Kings (through his subordinates, but he sanctioned it) decision not to adopt a proper convoying system, and to refuse all offeres of help from the British for the West Coast and Carribbean shipping lanes, almost until it was too late. There is strong evidence to suggest that the only reason for this monumental blunder was no better placed than Kings intense hatred of the British

Same with Germany and Russia.

So you dont think the decision to open a two front war was a monumental blunder, or to kill off your officer corps just as the war clouds were looming, or the failure to fully mobilise the German war economy before it was already too late, as anything but stupendous blunders. you have got to be joking

Syscom, I strogly disagree with your position, as you can see from the above comments

 

[Soren]

Parsifal you generalize when you shouldn't. Hitler made the decision to declare war on the US, against the advice of his generals mind you.

Entering the Soviet Union was btw no mistake, the Germans could've easily taken the USSR if it again hadn't been for a number of disasterous decisions made by Hitler, one of them being to send an overflow of ammo to the front instead of the crucially needed winterclothing already in stock waiting to be transported. This decision doomed over half a million German soldiers to freeze to death.

It was declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbour combined with the disasterous decision not send winterclothing which was to be the death sentence to the third reich.

Declaring war on three superpowers at a time and winning no nation could have ever succeeded.

 

[parsifal]

asserting that the germans coud easily defeat the Russians is a VERY brave statement to make. And the generalization is the correct way to go. After PH how long do you really believe the US would remain neutral to Germany. The US was baying for blood after Pearl, and not just for japanese blood. It was just an awkward diplomatic situation, nothing more, that hitler obligingly solved.

And I fail to see, how attacking the USSR lessens the strategic blunder of opening a second front, when the first one is far from decided.

The only thing to said in its (ie the attack on Russia) favour was that if the Germans had been able to defeat the Soviets, the war would progress for a lot longer than it did. in this regard I agree with some earlier statements made by Syscom himself, namely that the US was the key to victory, and that was going to happen sooner or later.

HOWEVER, the Germans grossly underestimated the problems in russia, by a very wide margin, and that is probably the biggest mistake they made of all the litany of mistakes that can be laid at Germany's feet

 

[kool kitty89]

Don't forget that the US was already basicly in the war to a small extent (USN escots for British in Atlantic) by 1941.

However if Germany had gone straight for Russia, and left Britain alone, it could have been a different story. Granted the delayed expansion of the Millitary economy was a major problem.

But if they'd left Britain alone it could have delayed their (and the US) continued involvement significantly.


And if Germany had broken ties with Japan (or even Declaired war on them) that would have majorly confused things for the US. Particularly if Germany had invaded Russia and left Britain alone. Possibly even resulting in an "Unholy alliance" similar to the one with the USSR. (and the Declaration of war on Japan would, in realiy, mean little more than a political move as there wasn't a whole lot Germany could do from its position)

 

[Marcel]

The wording for the title of this thread should read "most inept".

As many people have mentioned, the French deserve the ranking of being the most inept. In 1939 they were a preeminent military power. They were well equiped with good weapons and had lots of manpower.

But they were also very poorly led and followed strategic and tactical doctrine that was a one way road to defeat. That is what led them to defeat so fast.

Hmm, how long would the UK have lasted if they had been firmly attached to the mainland with nice soil on which those nice German tanks could roll? Or the US in that matter in 1940? I agree on the French being poorly led, but that applies to all the countries in 1940, apart from Germany.

Britain and the US had their share of blunders but it never altered the basic calculus of the war.

See above, so the fact that you have the luxury of not having to face the enemy as you are protected by miles of water makes you better than the once who are not that lucky?

 

[syscom3]

See above, so the fact that you have the luxury of not having to face the enemy as you are protected by miles of water makes you better than the once who are not that lucky?

The US was not involved in the war at that time so any "ineptness" was impossible to prove.

The French ranked high so the fall was made worse.

 

[parsifal]

One other thing about Sorens post that occurred to me. It will be pointless to argue whether or not Germany could, or could not have defeated Germany. Whatever evidence is presented, it will just be refuted, and denied.

However, just considering Sorens position for a minute, he is basically saying that the war against Russia was winnable for Germany. But they didnt, because of the failures in German leadership. Which only reinforces the argument that Germany was the most ineptly led country in the war. Here they are, with the means to win their war, but blew it, because of the mistakes made by their leader. In my book, that only reinforces the case for Germany to be named the worst led country in WWII

 

[Njaco]

ahhhhh, but there is the crux of the situation. Is the thread "Worst led"?

 

[parsifal]

Hi Njaco

Well for such a poorly defined question I think that leadership/management is about the only measure we can apply, unless someone wants to go and produce a list of factors, apply a relative weighting, and then apply the formula. Im certainly not going to try that

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Interesting idea about Germany declaring war on Japan. It's true Japan had little way to retaliate. It would have been confused, since it was at war with Russia as well, and Russia at war with Germany, and Germany at war with them, Japan.

I think Japan would have allied itself with Russia in that case, maybe, but like you said there would be little it could do. It couldn't pull a "Pearl Harbor" over Berlin or any German City. They were too faraway.

On the whole, was it a good idea or not for Germany to ally itself with Italy? Fighting Mussolini would have been hard, since he's on Germany's back doorstep.

 

[ToughOmbre]

Why not?

The German army fought very well in Bastogne and almost broke them.

Very true Adler. The German army always fought well. My point was to counter Soren's statement, "seeing that their performance effectiveness on the battlefield was the best". If that statement by Soren is true (and in my opinion it is not) then the Screaming Eagles would not have held, even though they were surrounded, out-manned and out-gunned.

Just very tired of Soren's point of view that the German military in WW II was the greatest fighting force in the history of the world.

TO

 

[Soren]

Just very tired of Soren's point of view that the German military in WW II was the greatest fighting force in the history of the world.

Come on lets not overreact.

Some branches of the German army were the best of their time (not in the history of mankind), their training being three times the lenght of any Allied soldier and their equipment in many cases superior. For this reason the German soldiers of the Wehrmacht Waffen SS from the 30's and up until 43 can be considered the best trained in the world, and their better effectiveness on the battlefield was well proven. (Something Patton noted as-well)

However by mid 44 to 45 the training period for the newly enlisted German soldiers had been cut extremely short by comparison to earlier on, and the fighting quality of the new men sent to the fronts at that point were therefore but amateurs compared to the coming out of boot camp earlier on.

That having been said the soldiers from the US UK weren't poorly trained or badly equipped, they were well trained, highly motivated well equipped.

The most poorly trained soldiers of the war were undoubtedly the Soviet soldiers.

PS: Let's not forget that from every conflict we learn valuable lessons and implement them in our future training of recruits.

 

[syscom3]

I have to agree with Soren to some degree.

The German army was a well led and magnificently equipped force.

It was usually defeated in the field only because the allies had superior logistics and air power.

They were not supermen, but not push overs either.

 

[Marcel]

The US was not involved in the war at that time so any "ineptness" was impossible to prove.

The French ranked high so the fall was made worse.

Hmmm, the US got quite a beating in 1941/first half of 1942 against Japan. They were lucky they could withdraw and gather strength. The French didn´t have that luxury.

The German army was a well led and magnificently equipped force.

It was usually defeated in the field only because the allies had superior logistics and air power.

You´re right. Interestingly, I read about an exeption on that. German 22nd division paratroopers were defeated within 24 hours by Dutch recrutes(!) in 1940. You can imagine I read that twice before realising what was said

 

[syscom3]

Any ineptness the US had was measured against the immense industrial and manpower reserves the US had.

We could mess up and not impact the course of the war.

One big difference between the US and France in 1939 .....
France was equipped and ready for war. The US was still in our isolationist mode.

 

[Marcel]

Any ineptness the US had was measured against the immense industrial and manpower reserves the US had.

We could mess up and not impact the course of the war.

One big difference between the US and France in 1939 .....
France was equipped and ready for war. The US was still in our isolationist mode.

True. I would say for the US, having water between them and their enemy was also a great help.

As for France, that is counts for most countries in 1940 including the UK. They were however ill prepared for the new tactics the Germans used. In a trench war they probably would have stood a chance, but the Germans thought otherwise. Their (France) pre-war defense policy was a disaster, but again, not unlike most other countries, including the US and UK.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Just very tired of Soren's point of view that the German military in WW II was the greatest fighting force in the history of the world.

TO

Aha got you, and agree.

I have to agree with Soren to some degree.

The German army was a well led and magnificently equipped force.

It was usually defeated in the field only because the allies had superior logistics and air power.

They were not supermen, but not push overs either.

Agreed. I don't think I could have said it better.