Best soldiers of WWII?

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Babra, being of Brazilian descent you bring a tear to my eye! Their contribution in fighting men might have been small, but they did capture Mt. Castelo and a German division. Brazil was also a huge source of raw materials for the US during the war.

Gyrene

[litchy]

Don't you get it, the best soldier was his dad, my dad and your dad. After that it doesn't mean anything.

[litchy]

Sorry if I'm taking this too personal, but sometimes as a newbie this forum does seem a litle bit vish.

[WRG]

You're right on the money there, Itchy, there's no bitchier forum anywhere – if the initial question is asinine and infantile enough.

[Moriarty]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

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."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It should also be noted that British convoys kept an awful lot of people supplied with the arms and materiel to keep up the fight against the Axis powers.

Gen-X, the point is quite simple. It was a joint effort. The United States military was slow getting to the party for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was isolationist policies that continued until the time that Japan set the nation's mind straight on an early December Sunday morning. The Europeans (generically includes all UK troops) carried the brunt of the fighting for a long time before the U.S. military got up to speed.

The U.S. did some remarkable things and generally acquitted itself well during the war and especially after, which has been duly noted. But to go on and on in the vein that the U.S. was a the savior of the world is juvenile, unsupported by history and serves little purpose other than to piss off folks who are justifiably tired of this myth.

The United States responded with fresh troops and all the materiel of war, produced by an industrial complex unhindered by the threat of bombing and largely unaffected by worker shortages.

We did what was needed, no more, no less.

[Moriarty]

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

Don't you get it, the best soldier was his dad, my dad and your dad. After that it doesn't mean anything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, don't forget my mom, too. U.S. Navy intelligence during WWII, while the old man was a bombardier in the much maligned B-24 Liberator. But this probably isn't the right forum to get into the contribution of the air forces ... unless you remember that tanks ain't worth a damn without ballbearings and oil.

[Mlapanzer]

I would have to say quit simply MEDIC's. This would encompass all nationalities and specialties. Think about it!

[Guest Babra]

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

I would have to say quit simply MEDIC's. This would encompass all nationalities and specialties. Think about it!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roger THAT! No medic/corpsman/EMT pays for his own drinks in my bar ever! EVER!

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You're right on the money there, Itchy, there's no bitchier forum anywhere – if the initial question is asinine and infantile enough. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WRG, so are you telling me that my question has no merit what so ever? Why is my question infantile and asinine? I guess the everyone else who made a geniuine post on this thread is also infantile and asinine.

Please enlighten me, I'm keen to hear your mature and astute observations.

Gyrene

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Canadians (I am one) were an all volunteer army. They went because they wanted too. They also wanted to get the job done....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Canadian Army had thousands of draftees, many of whom refused to serve overseas, and several hundred who mutinied or deserted rather than go to Hong Kong or the Aleutians (never mind Europe).

The Canadian Army was not an all-volunteer army, though the overseas troops in Europe were until about February 1945, when draftees began arriving there, too.

The Zombies (Pierre Elliot Trudeau was one) were those who refused to volunteer.

When Pierre Trudeau visited Normandy on the 40th Anniversary of D-Day, Canadian veterans were heard to shout at him "We didn't need you then, and we don't need you now."

And I still agree that while the arguments for "best Allied troops" are nebulous - none of you has addressed the First Special Service Force. They were, in a word, superb. But of little use in a modern, world-wide conflict - they were disbanded in late 1944 as an unneeded luxury.

Which should tell you that the Allies, as has been discussed before, were aboue QUANTITY - not QUALITY.

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[WRG]

Originally posted by Gyrene:

Please enlighten me, I'm keen to hear your mature and astute observations.

QED.

[Moriarty]

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

Roger THAT! No medic/corpsman/EMT pays for his own drinks in my bar ever! EVER!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hot damn, where's your bar? FF/EMT for 20 years.

[Guest Babra]

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

Hot damn, where's your bar? FF/EMT for 20 years.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sniff. I love you, man. Drop me a line if you're ever in T.O.

Now I must process your turn and kill you some...

[Wesreidau]

So this is what the CM forum has come too?

Ahh for the halcyon days of penetrating grog porn, overly anal analysis and logic *sigh*

PeterNZ

[rleete]

Have to agree with you, there, PeterNZer. It's all getting rather too tame.

[Aloid]

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

WRG, so are you telling me that my question has no merit what so ever? Why is my question infantile and asinine? I guess the everyone else who made a geniuine post on this thread is also infantile and asinine.

Please enlighten me, I'm keen to hear your mature and astute observations.

Gyrene<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see this as infantile or asinine, but it is truly hard to quantify, which pulls in everyone's personal bias, and pisses people off. This leads to infantile bickering and asinine squabling...

I can think of units for just about every nationality (including Germans) that had exeptional moments. Remember, unit performance changed as the fortunes of war changed.

Over-all, my vote for special forces goes to US bomber crews in Europe. (yes, that catagory is a stretch... but man what balls those guys had.)

Aloid

[Mace]

The way to avoid a flame is not to belittle the contribution made by other countries, it's as easy as that.

Mace

btw *Group hug*

[BloodyBucket]

First things first:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'd have to add the 29th Infantry Division (Omaha and inland), the 28th Infantry Division (Bulge), <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, gunnergoz. I will tell my father, a 28th Infantry vet, that you said that, and he will be touched.

For the best, I nominate every single soldier in every single nation that fought. God forbid that I ever have to hoe a row that tough. Who knows how I would have fared if asked to carry such a heavy burden? I admire them all.

There are black marks aplenty to go around, and each of us has to make judgements about who was right or wrong, but on the level of the individual soldier, I say bless everyone of them. Too bad so many are passing on every day. We are poorer for it.

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The way to avoid a flame is not to belittle the contribution made by other countries, it's as easy as that.

Mace

btw *Group hug* <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mace, this thread would be a good case study for Psychology students. They could dissect it to see just when the thing spiralled out of control. lol

Gyrene

[Boba_Fett]

For some reason this topic is rediculous to me. We are talking about real war and real men dying. It's not a god damn game where there are best players and such. They were killing each others for gods' sake. So the question "who was/were the best killing machine" is childish. They did what they had to do and that's it.

[litchy]

Bob or Mr Fett, totally right.

[Gyrene]

Boba Fett and Litchy, you can save your righteousness, you are not convincing me. If you were really so averse to the violence of war you would not be playing this game, or even reading this thread.

When the first "keeper of the morals" made his post all the "me too's" chime in with their "Yeah, you're right, war sucks, yuk" Of course war sucks, but every single person that plays this game has an interest in warfare in some level, anyone who denies that is nothing but a hypocrite.

If you weren't interested in the grittier aspects of combat you would play a look-down 2D war game.

I did not denigrate any nation with my comments and I will stand by the validity of my original post.

Yes being a good soldier involved being an efficient killing machine. I chose the Japanese for their efficiency, but I hate them for their brutallity against prisoners and civilians. I'm not some blind war-loving freak, I've seen first hand what's left after War is done with people.

I never understood people who come to this forum and play this game and pretend to be some f'ing sensitive, there have been several discussions about the best tanks and the best weapons, but do you forget that there were people inside those tanks and those weapons were used to kill people? Maybe if you only talk about the tools you can have a pretty, sanitized picture in your head about what those tools were used for.

If War of the discussion of War offends you, then I'd recommend you try a different game and a different forum, and in the mean time avoid this thread and any like this one altogether and leave me and the people who understood my original intent alone.

Gyrene

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Gyrene ]

[offtaskagain]

Well said Gyrene.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Yes being a good soldier involved being an efficient killing machine. I chose the Japanese for their efficiency, but I hate them for their brutallity against prisoners and civilians. [ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Gyrene ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not so sure they were "efficient" in the normal senses of the word. The fact that they were unafraid to die made them a very potent enemy, to be sure. This distinguished him from his western counterpart in very meaningful ways - and would account for his success at killing large numbers of his enemies. Yet he didn't win any land battles in the Southern Pacific after June 1942 (did he?).

They were truly a mysterious people; their nation came to maturity in isolation, but you can still see traces of their WW II ideas (such as Bushido) in the modern Japanese nation. Look at the suicide rates among their over achieving businesspersons and students. They were, and are, a very driven people, and in the 1940s, brutality was a fact of life for the Japanese themselves - NCOs were permitted to strike junior soldiers; something unheard of in the west. Look what happened to Patton after the slapping incidents. In the Japanese Army, it was a matter of course - and this was transferred to their prisoners. While you can't condone their treatment of prisoners, you can make some semblance of sense if you realize how cheap human life was to them, and how physical violence was seen as acceptable.

None of which makes them efficient killers; on the contrary their anitquated equipment and sometimes ridiculous tactics (banzai, anyone?) means that while they made Allied troops pay dearly for their victories, it cost them far more than a European army would have paid (or been willing to).

The Germans, on the other hand, fought skillfully on the defence, making use of natural obstacles and booby traps - and being smart enough (generally speaking) to abandon positions that could not be defended. He lost as badly as the Japanese in the end, but he inflicted casualties at a more acceptable ratio.

[ 05-02-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Stalins Organ]

Gyrene whether you denigrated anyone or not, or intended to or not, is not the point.

the very nature of this thread means that people must compare the "performance" of various troops and nationalities, so it was always going to degenerate!

Even just by saying "xyz is the best" without saying anything else you are opening up an argument although that may not be your intention.