Jump to content

Best soldiers of WWII?


Recommended Posts

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbott:

Dr. Brian,

Your ideas on the German Military in World War II are always a bit over shadowed by your personal feelings. I recognize your many excellent contributions to this forum and do try and understand the why of your bias.

Nevertheless with personal feelings aside and a military perspective I heartily disagree with your claim that the German Military’s excellence in battle is myth. Man for man the German soldiers were a match for any countries military.

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Abbott ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are no personal feelings involved here. This is simple logic, and facts. I can not see the logic of the German soldier as being "superior" than the Soviet, US, or UK fighter.

All the facts keep pointing to the contrary. The myth lives on, because for the first time in history, the losers (Germans) got to write the history (due to the Cold War).

Give it time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 248
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Has anyone even considered the basic American GI fighting across Europe? These guys were conscripted from all walks of life, who didnt want to be there, and just wanted to get the job done and go home. And they did it!"

I did and somebody thought it was shortsighted.

Sheesh

Gen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone even considered the basic American GI fighting across Europe? These guys were conscripted from all walks of life, who didnt want to be there, and just wanted to get the job done and go home. And they did it!"

I think you should say the basic allied soldier, rather than just American. The British/commonwealth were fighting and got the job done too. The Americans weren't the only citizen soldiers fighting in Europe . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know that other countries fought in WWII, however, I did figure this was an opinion based forum, and my OPINION was that the American GI can be considered one of the best. I think you're just jealous b/c you're canadian.

I think that Gen-x87 is the most brilliant of all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I have tons of respect for the average American soldier. It just seemed to me that you should have included other nations who were doing the exact same thing. Brits/Commonwealth and other countries didn't want to be there, but got the job done. I think WE ALL have something to be proud of . . . Therefore include everyone.

As for me being Canadian, That makes no difference. I don't Envy, nor do I condemn America. America is our ally, and I enjoy the their weather! smile.gif . . Stupid Canadian winters . ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia is a minor power? The Germans crushed Russia so badly nobody really knows how many losses they inflicted. They would have won if Hitler had listened to any of his generals. He didn't go for Moscow and just piddled around with encirclement of troops that would have surrendered when Moscow fell. He then let the Panzers sit for a month till the Autumn rains. And even with the break for the Russians, they still made it to the suburbs of Moscow. By 1944, when they were outnumbered by at least 5:1, they still managed to hold off the hordes on both fronts and inflict massive casualties, though they took quite a few themselves. I would hardly call that a "butt kicking". Thats like saying the Tet offensive was a military success for the VC. They were utterly destroyed, even though they ended up winning the political battle, which is the most important of all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I have to give credit to the other nations, particularly GB,Gay France, and Russia for their huge contributions to winning the war. But USA kicks a$$, there's no denying it. USA all the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> There are no personal feelings involved here. This is simple logic, and facts. I can not see the logic of the German soldier as being "superior" than the Soviet, US, or UK fighter.

All the facts keep pointing to the contrary. The myth lives on, because for the first time in history, the losers (Germans) got to write the history (due to the Cold War).

Give it time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dr. Brian, Why do you think that many of the German army's training methods, and tactics are emulated today by military forces such as the United States? A nation the size of Montana with a total population of approximately 80 million does not conquer the vast majority of Europe without having a military that is supremely well trained, highly motivated, and well equiped. Was everything perfect?, Of course not, but, man for man, the German army of World War II was quite simply one of the best armies to have ever been fielded by any nation.

Also, that bit about the losers writing the history is complete B.S. I've noticed more than a few historical works on WWII written by non-German authors, and a good number of those recognize how good the Germany army really was.

Besides, losers contributing to, or writing the majority of the historical works is nothing new. Athens did it when they lost to Sparta during the Peloponesian War.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KRS321:

I'm sorry, I have to give credit to the other nations, particularly GB,Gay France, and Russia for their huge contributions to winning the war. But USA kicks a$$, there's no denying it. USA all the way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm a patriotic American, but I have to say that this kind of comment, I could live without.

Its insulting, dismissive and doesn't add anything to the discussion. If you want this thread to degenerate in a flame war, keep it up.

Terence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to go with any self respecting and moral partisan. . They weren't highly trained, they weren't lavishly equipped, but they were highly motivated by the fact that they were fighting for their homes. Partisans risked exposure and death to disrupt enemy activity in their homelands, they get my vote on the basis of sheer determination and tenacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to go with any self respecting and moral partisan. . They weren't highly trained, they weren't lavishly equipped, but they were highly motivated by the fact that they were fighting for their homes. Partisans risked exposure and death to disrupt enemy activity in their homelands, they get my vote on the basis of sheer determination and tenacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before this thread gets locked up I have to say that the best soldiers of WWII were the Dirty Dozen, hardened criminals who didn't want to fight but they went in and kicked butt, (of course most were killed in the end but lets not talk about that,) come on they rock. Plus they could fire their Grease Guns from the hip and hit their target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I started this topic I was hoping that I could get some educated replies and maybe a post or two that would make some of us go "Oh wow, yes, I forgot about those guys, they were very good" etc, but sadly it degraded to the same pointless bashing as it normally does.

First let me thank the members who did reply with simple, intelligent answers, I really appreciate that and I have noticed your posts.

From the start I realized that people would vote for their own home country and/or whatever branch they served in, that is why I asked for two choices for each category.

In war there are units that are better than others, it is a fact of life, just like in sports, some teams are just plain better than others at that moment in time

Because the German Army of 1941 was better than the American Army of 1941 that does not mean the the entire worth of the US Army since then is nil.

This is a historical comparison I don't care how good the Aussies were in Vietnam, If you think they were the best in WWII then I'll accept that answer.

In 20 B.C. the Romans would have mopped the floor with the English, but what I care about is if you think that they were not only better than the Italians in WWII, but also the best regular infantry period

Historical evidence. It's there. If I had asked what the best National Football (Soccer) team of the 1970's was would it be reasonable for someone to chime in that while the Dutch were very good their lawnmowers at time were crap and the UK made much better ones? Of course not, so why bring up the same tangential nonsense here?

Gyrene

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gen-x87 wrote:

> Oh did I hit a nerve with you?

Were you trying to?

> I am not familiar with who you are. So your last comment doesnt seem to hold much water.

> Want to expand what you mean by "and from someone who holds it, this statement is not at all surprising"

> Have we met before?

What's that got to do with it? First you claimed that Britain and Russia would not have "survived" without the US, and then you claimed that US soldiers "always seem to find a way to win" and are "always inflicting more casualties than the enemy". I simply said that, from someone who had offered one blindly biased opinion, another was no surprise.

> Gee everybody knew they were coming. But they really could not stop it.

Would you like to define "everyone"? The French had a defensive strategy. The Germans outmaneuvred them. The French were not unwilling to fight, they simply lost their main asset straight away.

> Ahh they usually seem to run when the fight comes

Oh right. Good argument.

> I forgot the BEF was not part of the British army.

Read what I said. "The British Army did not return to France in force until Overlord."

> > But too many people seem to be ignorant of the fact that we were fighting in Africa and Asia/Australasia, as well as fending off German air attacks at home, and supporting resistance and partisan operations."

> Quit making excuses.

I beg your pardon? Excuses for what? I'm pointing out that Britain wasn't somehow defeated until the US showed up. Is fighting a war in three theatres while your country is under attack somehow irrelevant?

> I find that statement rather ignorant. Even you have said they were fighting in Africa, SE Asia and at home. It is quite obvious that the British were on the defensive until the U.S. got involved. Actually I wonder how the british would have faired minus the Lend Lease policy with the US.

Did I dispute that we were on the defensive? The point I am making is that we were conducting operations on the other side of the world while we were under attack. Being on the defensive is a long way from being defeated, which is what you claimed Britain and Russia would have been without the US.

> Anywho I think we are now seeing why your anger is showing through in your posts. You appear to be from the region.

You mean Britain? Did I not in my last post use "we" to refer to the British? And if you regard that as a reason for my "anger", you are implying that you would expect your comments to anger the British.

> I suppose singapore being taken, Rommel running about free in Africa and the home front being smashed day in day out can be construed as sustaining.

My particular use of the word "sustain" was in an economic context, as I had in mind comments made by another person on the forum about the British supposedly having no food.

> Well gee let me see. You just admitted it was doubtful the British would have defeated the Axis on thier own. Then say no way is the US the savior? What is wrong with the above paragraph? You obviously needed a savior(US) to get the job done.

> I suppose you can stop thanking us for starving the Japanese of oil to the point where they thought they had to bomb us to get us to the bargaining table

Good heavens. I fully recognise the USA's contribution to the war. If anything I am over-generous in this respect, because so many Americans such as yourself seem to think that the US won the war all by itself and saved the free world in the process. You can spend all day pointing out things the US did, and I will agree with you. But you are claiming that the other Allied countries would have been destroyed without the US, which is nonsense. "I highly doubt England or the Soviets would have survived."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff Heidman,

You make some good points, particularly about the radios. My point was simply that the "myth" that the Germans were initially successful due to their superior equipment is false. They were successful due to their tactics and training as well as their attitude towards training NCOs. someone previously had mentioned that he was tired of the "myth" of superior German training. I was just addressing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologies to all the Aussies that I seem to have hit a raw nerve on (I'm also Stalin's organ when posting from home).

My point is that while your infantry did a sterling job at Tobruk, it was as useless as anyone else's in Greece and Malaya, then great again in PNG......

Every nation that has ever fought can point to it's own "Tobruk", so why is yours better than all theirs?

BTW I'm a Kiwi, proud of the ANZAC's and of course the NZ Divisions - but I just do not hold any illusions about the men that did the fighting.

They were all "just" men - no superheros among them, including the 2 NZ double VC winners, doing a **** job, in **** conditions, while getting shot at!

And IMO the same applies to the Germans, Italians, Japs and russians et al.

Contrary to popular belief, for example, most Japanese "infantry" weer not highly trained jungle fighters - most were half starved conscripts who their commanders did not care about. Many of the defenders of the islands in the Pac Campaign were service troops, Koreans and Chinese - making Banzai charges for the emperor!

they had all been carpenters, farmers, accountants and store keepers at some stage - so how do American or Aussie or British accountants, carpenters and storekeepers get to "rate" higher because of their occupations??

Mike

Happy that 2 generations since WW2 have not had to do it again!

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Mike the bike ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Babra

Hell, even the most cursory of examinations indicates that the best soldiers of WW2 were the Brazilians.

They are the only nation not to have suffered a serious military fiasco. There were no Brazilian Kharkovs, Kasserines, Dunkerques or Dieppes, no Guadalcanals or Singapores. Just a bunch of Josés doin' a job with little or no recognition. Heros every one of 'em in my book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KRS321:

What is all this talk about Australian army, who cares? What is everyone Australian here or what?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey KRS321, do you have an issue about Aussies, and if so, would you like to share it with us?

Mace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best soldiers? Geez, that's tough.

Best SPecial Forces

In the ETO, I like the U.S. Army Rangers and the British Commandos for sheer chutzpah. The Rangers assault on Pointe du Hoc impresses the heck out of me, as does the raid on St. Nazaire (the thought of being part of a small force of men wading into the middle of enemy occupied territory on a nearly suicidal mission scares the heck out of me). For the Germans, I'd probably choose Skorzeny's commandos.

In the Pacific, the Australian Coastwatchers, though not strictly conventional military, impress me for the same reasons as the British commandos, but even more so. Behind enemy lines, with certain death if caught, and armed with little more than a sidearm and a radio? Whew.

Best Conventional Infantry

ALlies - either the 101st AB or the British 1st AB. Both held out for extended periods against overwhelming odds.

Germans? Hmmm. Probably the Fallschirmjagers for general, overall toughness (nasty opponents in Italy and France).

In the Pacific, I have to agree with Gyrene - the USMC was, IMHO, one of the best overall units in the war.

MrSpkr

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...