Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 14:55:41


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


Another week, another fun debate of death and destruction

But it is a question that has often occupied my mind, because there are so many candidates. The following choices below are obviously my personal opinion, and please note, they don't have to be all conquering empires, as many nations were very successful in repelling invasions. And if you have your own preference, please give a few lines below in the comments.

Mongolia

This needs no explanation.

Canada

This is no joke. Canada has repelled numerous invasions over the years, has never lost a war to the best of my knowledge, and Canadian troops had a reputation of being mean mother feckers in WW1. Despite their peaceful, laid back approach, don't mess with Canada.


Great Britain

Despite the poor weather, awful teeth, and penchant for tea , this small island in the North Atlantic succeeded in creating the biggest empire the world has ever seen. 90% of the world's nations have at one time been invaded by the British.
Many have stood against Britain, few have succeeded...

Vietnam

For centuries they fought for freedom, always refusing to yield. Trying to conquer Vietnam has been likened to hacking at fog with a cutlass. They seen off the French, they seen off a super-power a few years later.

Prussia/Germany

The Wehrmacht has often been described as the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen, all of Europe falling to them in 1940/41, and the Prussian legacy of Fredrick The Great, and the German wars of unification, will forever be in the annals of military history.

Italy

Italy had a poor reputation in WW2, but the Roman Empire speaks for itself...

Other

Please add below your own choice if you disagree with the above, or any other honourable mentions I have forgotten to mention.



Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 15:16:20


Post by: Ketara


I don't understand the question.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 15:25:34


Post by: Skinnereal


It seems to be:
"In military terms, who is the most successful country?"


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 15:33:45


Post by: Dark Apostle 666


I think the term "deadliest" is a bit of an odd choice - It seems to imply that the question is "which army caused the most deaths", but what I think was being asked is "which was the most successful".
And of course, there's a difference between winning wars and killing lots of the enemy (though the two do overlap somewhat).





Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 15:58:18


Post by: LordofHats


So what, we tally up kill counts?

I got into history to avoid math sir!


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 17:16:05


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Mongolia. They brought the Black Death to Europe (inadvertently, but still). This set the ground for modern European history, including the epidemics in the Americas later.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 17:17:54


Post by: Vaktathi


There are issues with some of these choices. For example, Italy, as a modern state, and the Roman Empire, are so widely separated by time, culture, technology, population changes, etc, not to mention distinct internal divisions, that lumping them together makes about at much sense as lumping in Hittites or Ionian Greeks with modern Turkey.

"Deadliest" is also hard to define. In terms of raw destructive power and the capabilities able to be brought to bear, in absolute terms, the United States has probably held that title for the last 75 years. Even during WW2, the US was able to sustain fighting two separate conflicts on opposite sides of the planet against other great world empires in total war situations, simultaneously, and achieving (in cooperation with allies) total unconditional surrender in all areas. Even in relative terms, that's hard to match let alone beat. That power has only grown over time.

If we're talking generally most successful at achieving war aims (be it simple defense of borders or something else), that could go a lot of different ways, and dozens of states and peoples pop up there.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 17:23:39


Post by: Iron_Captain


Genghis Khan killed so many people that he affected the climate, destroyed entire empires and nations and the places he devastated never recovered. His generals and sons weren't exactly afraid to conquer and kill either. They conquered vast amounts of territory and fought and won against incredibly powerful and diverse opponents all over Eurasia. No conqueror or empire comes even close to the great Khan's achievements in that regard I think. Alexander the Great probably takes second place, but his conquests were small next to Genghis'.

The British created an empire even larger than that of Genghis Khan, but they did so mostly by colonising and massacring virtually defenseless native people in Africa and Asia that did not have the advanced firearms and military that Great Britain had. You cannot call a nation militarily successful if it never faces any challenges or threats. When the British military did go up against technological equals (Napoleonic Wars, World Wars etc.) they generally performed well but never noticeably better than others.

By contrast, Genghis Khan and his Mongolians went up against forces that were vastly superior to his and defeated them only because of their exceptional (and often unconventional) tactics and strategy. That is what makes the Mongolians' conquests so remarkable.

I think the only nation that could rival the Mongolian's claim to being history's most militarily successful nation is China, although for different reasons. While many nations can claim brilliant strategists, tacticians and conquerors, and while many nations can claim to have established great empires at some point in their history, only China has been able to maintain an empire for over 4000 years. All other empires have crumbled. China still stands. Even when China was conquered by foreign powers such as the Mongols, the conquerors were absorbed and China endured. Even when China faced technologically superior foes such as Great Britain, China maintained itself. And even while China has been divided by civil wars many times, sometimes for a very long time, it has always come back together rather than fallen apart. China was an empire when the Assyrians conquered Ancient Egypt. China was an empire when Alexander led his armies into India. China was an empire when Romulus was still suckling from the wolf's teat. China was still an empire when Rome fell. China is still an empire today. Of the great ancient civilisations, China is the only one to have endured as a state in an unbroken line to the present day. Babylon is nothing but ruins and old relics. Egypt was defeated and absorbed into other empires. India has seen many empires over the course of its long history, but none that have lasted. China too, has been conquered and divided, yet the Chinese state always remained.
Now that is truly an achievement unrivaled in history. For a nation to establish an empire is a great military achievement. But isn't it an even greater military achievement to be able to maintain an empire for thousands of years?


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 17:38:30


Post by: Mr Morden


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Genghis Khan killed so many people that he affected the climate, destroyed entire empires and nations and the places he devastated never recovered. His generals and sons weren't exactly afraid to conquer and kill either.
No conqueror or empire comes even close to the great Khan's achievements. Alexander the Great probably takes second place, but his conquests were small next to Genghis'.

The British created an empire even larger than that of Genghis Khan, but they did so mostly by colonising and massacring virtually defenseless native people in Africa and Asia that did not have the advanced firearms and military that Great Britain had. You cannot call a nation militarily successful if it never faces any challenges or threats. When the British military did go up against technological equals (Napoleonic Wars, World Wars etc.) they generally performed well but never noticeably better than others.

By contrast, Genghis Khan and his Mongolians went up against forces that were vastly superior to his and defeated them only because of their exceptional (and often unconventional) tactics and strategy. That is what makes the Mongolians' conquests so remarkable.

I think the only nation that could rival the Mongolian's claim to being history's most militarily successful nation is China. While many nations can claim brilliant strategists, tacticians and conquerors, and while many nations can claim to have established great empires at some point in their history, only China has been able to maintain an empire for over 4000 years. All other empires have crumbled. China still stands. Even when China was conquered by foreign powers such as the Mongols, the conquerors were absorbed and China endured. Even when China faced technologically superior foes such as Great Britain, China maintained itself. And even while China has been divided by civil wars many times, sometimes for a very long time, it has always come back together rather than fallen apart. China was an empire when the Assyrians conquered Ancient Egypt. China was an empire when Alexander led his armies into India. China was an empire when Romulus was still suckling from the wolf's teat. China was still an empire when Rome fell. China is still an empire today.
Now that is truly an achievement unrivaled in history. For a nation to establish an empire is a great military achievement. But isn't it an even greater military achievement to be able to maintain an empire for thousands of years?


Interestingly from my reading, the British Empire was achieved as much by accident as design and often due to individuals on the make or the aggressive rapacious corporations like the East India Company. They were also extremely effective at divide and rule - ie - lets You and Him fight and then We will pick up the pieces. The Romans and other Empires have also done this - its alot more effective and cheaper than direct invasion - you will find that alot of the massacures carried out by the British Empire are actually done by "native" troops whether that be in Scotland, Africa or Asia usually to settle old scores.

I would contend that China is really a succession of very different Empires not a single one unless you are happy to do the same with other regions....

The Mongolian army was suprerior to its peers in terms of strategy, logistics, weapons and other elements - which is why they won! I am confused how you think had a "vastly superior army"? It was only when the Muslim Mamluks and other adapted to and often copied their forces that they were matched and defeated.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 18:32:59


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Mr Morden wrote:

Interestingly from my reading, the British Empire was achieved as much by accident as design and often due to individuals on the make or the aggressive rapacious corporations like the East India Company. They were also extremely effective at divide and rule - ie - lets You and Him fight and then We will pick up the pieces. The Romans and other Empires have also done this - its alot more effective and cheaper than direct invasion - you will find that alot of the massacures carried out by the British Empire are actually done by "native" troops whether that be in Scotland, Africa or Asia usually to settle old scores.
Yeah, that is pretty standard empire strategy. Divide et impera.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I would contend that China is really a succession of very different Empires not a single one unless you are happy to do the same with other regions....
No, China is a succession of different dynasties and regimes. The new ruler always claimed the authority of the previous dynasty or regime. There never was a period where the state ceased to exist or a new ruler decided to found a new empire. When after a period of division and civil war some warlord would emerge victorious, they'd always claim the authority of the previous dynasty rather than establishing their own, new authority. Basically, there has always been continuity. Regimes can change, but as long as the state is not dissolved there is continuity.

 Mr Morden wrote:
The Mongolian army was suprerior to its peers in terms of strategy, logistics, weapons and other elements - which is why they won! I am confused how you think had a "vastly superior army"? It was only when the Muslim Mamluks and other adapted to and often copied their forces that they were matched and defeated.
The Chinese militaries were not only larger than Genghis' forces, it was also much better equipped and trained. The Jin Dynasty had divisions of heavily armoured infantry, heavy and light cavalry (including their own horse archers, the idea that the nations who faced the initial Mongol invasions were unfamiliar with horse archers and typical Mongolian tactics is bogus.), artillery etc. They were a much more diverse force led by a highly trained and professionally educated officer corps. Chinese logistics were superb as well, not to mention that China had a thousand years of experience in fighting the Mongols and other nomadic peoples. They also had the world's most powerful fortifications, most skilled engineers etc. I could go on for a long time here. The Mongol army in comparison was just a bunch of nomadic herdsmen riding ponies.The Mongolian military consisted mostly of lightly armed and armoured cavalry, usually without dedicated military training.
Basically, the military of the Jin dynasty was light years ahead of Genghis and his men. Genghis Khan won despite all the odds stacked against him (just like he did in the unification of Mongolia), through sheer strategic and tactical brilliance. He knew when and where to fight to get the advantage, made use of Chinese arrogance and set up rival dynasties and warlords against each other. His talent for doing that, and overcoming superior enemies in this way is what makes him remarkable.
Of course, the Mongol armies that somewhat later invade the Middle East and Europe are very different from the earlier Mongol forces. The later Mongol armies were sophisticated militaries with highly trained officers, logisticians and engineers in the Chinese fashion, backed up by the resources of northern China and much of central Asia. That the Mongols get defeated after a certain point is not so much because their opponents adapted to Mongol tactics (they were already familiar with Mongol tactics since they had been fighting nomads long before the Mongols showed up and often they had nomadic origins themselves and already used the same tactics the Mongols did), but rather because the Mongols got divided and Genghis Khan's successors started fighting one another. The infighting eventually weakened them enough for their opponents to get the upper hand. Of course, that is a process that ebbed and flowed over a hundred years. It wasn't just like "and then they learned to counter Mongol tactics and started winning".


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 18:47:55


Post by: AdmiralHalsey


I am very suprised Russia is not on this list.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 19:13:28


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Skinnereal wrote:
It seems to be:
"In military terms, who is the most successful country?"



What I should have said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I am very suprised Russia is not on this list.



Russia was 50/50, and I would accept any good argument for it. Macedonia, USA kinda, and Napoleonic France, were also borderline.


Russia is obviously a very hard place to invade, but in the Great War, the Russian army was shambolic at times, especially when it was invading other people. So yeah, it's borderline.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Vaktathi wrote:
There are issues with some of these choices. For example, Italy, as a modern state, and the Roman Empire, are so widely separated by time, culture, technology, population changes, etc, not to mention distinct internal divisions, that lumping them together makes about at much sense as lumping in Hittites or Ionian Greeks with modern Turkey.

"Deadliest" is also hard to define. In terms of raw destructive power and the capabilities able to be brought to bear, in absolute terms, the United States has probably held that title for the last 75 years. Even during WW2, the US was able to sustain fighting two separate conflicts on opposite sides of the planet against other great world empires in total war situations, simultaneously, and achieving (in cooperation with allies) total unconditional surrender in all areas. Even in relative terms, that's hard to match let alone beat. That power has only grown over time.

If we're talking generally most successful at achieving war aims (be it simple defense of borders or something else), that could go a lot of different ways, and dozens of states and peoples pop up there.



My apologies to people. I have listened to people's feedback and changed the title accordingly.

In my defence, I was on the phone to the damn taxman earlier, and was obviously distracted.

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs: now there's a organisation that could do with a Mongol invasion.

Back OT. Yes, I agree, the USA obviously has the firepower to destroy the world a dozen times over if it missed, but from a historical perspective, I judge the USA by the following: much of your nation's history was taken up with Westward expansion, and then you were isolationist for a while, and since WW2, your military success has been hit or miss.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ketara wrote:
I don't understand the question.


The title is changed



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And responding to Vaktathi's point about Rome.


Yeah, there is a great deal of time separating to the two, but Rome still endures, unlike other ancient capitals, so I shall make an exception.


Greece is still Greece, for example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
I think the term "deadliest" is a bit of an odd choice - It seems to imply that the question is "which army caused the most deaths", but what I think was being asked is "which was the most successful".
And of course, there's a difference between winning wars and killing lots of the enemy (though the two do overlap somewhat).





Good point, and it's one of the reasons why IMO, Canada is on the list. They have repelled invasions, but they have also attacked other nations, and been successful. Some nations have obviously only attacked in self-defence. But Canada has demonstrated skill in both attack and defence.

In any war involving the USA, as either enemy or ally, Canada never loses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Mongolia. They brought the Black Death to Europe (inadvertently, but still). This set the ground for modern European history, including the epidemics in the Americas later.



Was the Black death not also spread by Venetian Or Genonese ships bringing back infected rats?


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 19:32:04


Post by: Mr Morden


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Mr Morden wrote:

Interestingly from my reading, the British Empire was achieved as much by accident as design and often due to individuals on the make or the aggressive rapacious corporations like the East India Company. They were also extremely effective at divide and rule - ie - lets You and Him fight and then We will pick up the pieces. The Romans and other Empires have also done this - its alot more effective and cheaper than direct invasion - you will find that alot of the massacures carried out by the British Empire are actually done by "native" troops whether that be in Scotland, Africa or Asia usually to settle old scores.
Yeah, that is pretty standard empire strategy. Divide et impera.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I would contend that China is really a succession of very different Empires not a single one unless you are happy to do the same with other regions....
No, China is a succession of different dynasties and regimes. The new ruler always claimed the authority of the previous dynasty or regime. There never was a period where the state ceased to exist or a new ruler decided to found a new empire. When after a period of division and civil war some warlord would emerge victorious, they'd always claim the authority of the previous dynasty rather than establishing their own, new authority. Basically, there has always been continuity. Regimes can change, but as long as the state is not dissolved there is continuity.

 Mr Morden wrote:
The Mongolian army was suprerior to its peers in terms of strategy, logistics, weapons and other elements - which is why they won! I am confused how you think had a "vastly superior army"? It was only when the Muslim Mamluks and other adapted to and often copied their forces that they were matched and defeated.
The Chinese militaries were not only larger than Genghis' forces, it was also much better equipped and trained. The Jin Dynasty had divisions of heavily armoured infantry, heavy and light cavalry (including their own horse archers, the idea that the nations who faced the initial Mongol invasions were unfamiliar with horse archers and typical Mongolian tactics is bogus.), artillery etc. They were a much more diverse force led by a highly trained and professionally educated officer corps. Chinese logistics were superb as well, not to mention that China had a thousand years of experience in fighting the Mongols and other nomadic peoples. They also had the world's most powerful fortifications, most skilled engineers etc. I could go on for a long time here. The Mongol army in comparison was just a bunch of nomadic herdsmen riding ponies.The Mongolian military consisted mostly of lightly armed and armoured cavalry, usually without dedicated military training.
Basically, the military of the Jin dynasty was light years ahead of Genghis and his men. Genghis Khan won despite all the odds stacked against him (just like he did in the unification of Mongolia), through sheer strategic and tactical brilliance. He knew when and where to fight to get the advantage, made use of Chinese arrogance and set up rival dynasties and warlords against each other. His talent for doing that, and overcoming superior enemies in this way is what makes him remarkable.
Of course, the Mongol armies that somewhat later invade the Middle East and Europe are very different from the earlier Mongol forces. The later Mongol armies were sophisticated militaries with highly trained officers, logisticians and engineers in the Chinese fashion, backed up by the resources of northern China and much of central Asia. That the Mongols get defeated after a certain point is not so much because their opponents adapted to Mongol tactics (they were already familiar with Mongol tactics since they had been fighting nomads long before the Mongols showed up and often they had nomadic origins themselves and already used the same tactics the Mongols did), but rather because the Mongols got divided and Genghis Khan's successors started fighting one another. The infighting eventually weakened them enough for their opponents to get the upper hand. Of course, that is a process that ebbed and flowed over a hundred years. It wasn't just like "and then they learned to counter Mongol tactics and started winning".


Thanks - I obviously have more reading to do


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 19:50:00


Post by: Laughing Man


I mean, if we're going off pure WLD here, Alexander the Great tops the list, given that he was never defeated in battle.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 19:50:12


Post by: Grey Templar


AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I am very suprised Russia is not on this list.


Russia isn't actually very militarily successful. They have excellent defensive track records, but its not really anything specific to the nation. Its geography that makes invading Russia a bad idea.

In terms of actual warfare, Russia has mixed results in the W/L department. They are the best in the world at making practical military equipment though.


Similarly, the US invasion of Canada during the War of 1812 was more of an indictment of the bad shape of the US army at the time and not any special skill on the part of Canada. Incompetent baboons would have been capable of conquering Canada with what the US had at the time, the US generals showed absurd levels of failure.

The truly ironic part is that the war of 1812 went completely opposite of how it was "supposed to happen". Great Britain expected to completely lose Canada, while maintaining sea dominance. Instead, they held Canada while the US navy ate the Royal Navy's lunch.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 19:51:27


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Grey Templar wrote:
AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I am very suprised Russia is not on this list.


Russia isn't actually very militarily successful. They have excellent defensive track records, but its not really anything specific to the nation. Its geography that makes invading Russia a bad idea.

In terms of actual warfare, Russia has mixed results in the W/L department. They are the best in the world at making practical military equipment though.


ehhhhhh, kinda disagree.
Their trackrecord only really went downhill after 1850.



Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 19:59:06


Post by: Grey Templar


Not Online!!! wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I am very suprised Russia is not on this list.


Russia isn't actually very militarily successful. They have excellent defensive track records, but its not really anything specific to the nation. Its geography that makes invading Russia a bad idea.

In terms of actual warfare, Russia has mixed results in the W/L department. They are the best in the world at making practical military equipment though.


ehhhhhh, kinda disagree.
Their trackrecord only really went downhill after 1850.



Perhaps. We could give the old Tsars credit for doing as well as they did with an army that was pretty much always fighting with out of date weaponry. Though there was that time a particular Swede kicked them around, again only losing because "Winter is coming!"


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 20:07:33


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Grey Templar wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I am very suprised Russia is not on this list.


Russia isn't actually very militarily successful. They have excellent defensive track records, but its not really anything specific to the nation. Its geography that makes invading Russia a bad idea.

In terms of actual warfare, Russia has mixed results in the W/L department. They are the best in the world at making practical military equipment though.


ehhhhhh, kinda disagree.
Their trackrecord only really went downhill after 1850.



Perhaps. We could give the old Tsars credit for doing as well as they did with an army that was pretty much always fighting with out of date weaponry. Though there was that time a particular Swede kicked them around, again only losing because "Winter is coming!"


Then there are generals like Suvorow which kicked Napoleon out of the alps, for the lulz.

The tsardom only really began to do badly after 1850, before it was a mixed bag with huge defensive victories.

France has also one of the best winrates of wars. Albeit WW2 was kinda like the low low point for them. Well except that one time swiss militia just captured some forts because Napoleon came back 1815.

Yes, even though Napoléon is kinda like the parent of the modern swiss state, he wasn't liked. To the point that his puppet government had 8 coups and multiple insurections against until he literally fliipped the table.



Then again the HRE Emperors surely also could tell a tale or two about violent swiss peasants breaking stuff and burning stuff down and questioning their legitimacy....



Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the most successfull, China VS China.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 20:43:35


Post by: JohnHwangDD


This is utter nonsense.

When has Russia ever been conquered by a foreign power? Did the Brits / Germans / Italians ever beat them? Nope.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Great Britain

Despite the poor weather, awful teeth, and penchant for tea , this small island in the North Atlantic succeeded in creating the biggest empire the world has ever seen. 90% of the world's nations have at one time been invaded by the British.
Many have stood against Britain, few have succeeded...


LOL. Lost half of one Continent to a bunch of rag-tag rebels. Lost an entire subcontinent to a dude who refuse to fight. Didn't have the balls to go against China in the 1990s. Had to be bailed out by America twice, or they'd the speaking German. Barely managed a fight over a little island near Argentina. Losers, never seem to have managed to ever win a fight against a real power.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 20:52:13


Post by: Formosa


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
This is utter nonsense.

When has Russia ever been conquered by a foreign power? Did the Brits / Germans / Italians ever beat them? Nope.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Great Britain

Despite the poor weather, awful teeth, and penchant for tea , this small island in the North Atlantic succeeded in creating the biggest empire the world has ever seen. 90% of the world's nations have at one time been invaded by the British.
Many have stood against Britain, few have succeeded...


LOL. Lost half of one Continent to a bunch of rag-tag rebels. Lost an entire subcontinent to a dude who refuse to fight. Didn't have the balls to go against China in the 1990s. Had to be bailed out by America twice, or they'd the speaking German. Barely managed a fight over a little island near Argentina. Losers, never seem to have managed to ever win a fight against a real power.


says the country that never won a war by itself


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 20:56:07


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 Formosa wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
T
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Great Britain

Despite the poor weather, awful teeth, and penchant for tea , this small island in the North Atlantic succeeded in creating the biggest empire the world has ever seen. 90% of the world's nations have at one time been invaded by the British.
Many have stood against Britain, few have succeeded...


LOL. Lost half of one Continent to a bunch of rag-tag rebels. Lost an entire subcontinent to a dude who refuse to fight. Didn't have the balls to go against China in the 1990s. Had to be bailed out by America twice, or they'd the speaking German. Barely managed a fight over a little island near Argentina. Losers, never seem to have managed to ever win a fight against a real power.


says the country that never won a war by itself


I'm sorry, but did we actually need anyone else to defeat the Nazis? No, we did not, but it didn't hurt to have them along for the ride.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 20:57:18


Post by: Kilkrazy


Just to make a point about the British Empire, it's true that the later colonial period -- the so-called "Scramble for Africa" -- had the British with breech-loading rifles, Maxim guns and cannons against tribal warriors with muskets and spears.

The earlier period when the British conquered India was a lot more evenly balanced. The native armies not only had access to the same "modern" (of the time) weapons, they also had drill from European mercenaries, as well as vast numbers (though mostly formed and armed in antique style.)

Thus, battles like Clive's and Wellesley's were won against significant opposition, and this realistically was the situation until the later 19th century.



Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 21:01:23


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Greece is still Greece, for example.

Actually, for much of its history "Greece" was Rome. Greece is a very young nation.
Ancient Greece was neither a single nation nor a state. Then the region became part of the Roman Empire and eventually it became the Roman Empire's heartland. Then eventually it became part of the Ottoman Empire. Then in the 19th century, ethnic nationalism becomes very popular and takes hold among Greek-speaking people as well. A part of Greece subsequently manages to break free and becomes the Greek nation-state. All this while there are lots of population movements and cultural changes in the area that is now Greece. There is no continuity between Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire and modern Greece.

The same thing is true for Ancient Rome and modern Italy. There is no continuity. There is lots of different peoples, cultures and states in between. The only thing Italy has in common with Ancient Rome is that it is located in the same geographical area as the Ancient Roman heartland. Beyond that they have no more links to Ancient Rome than say Greece, France, Romania or Spain.

And this goes for any modern European culture really. There is little to no continuity between ancient and modern cultures in all of Europe. The Migration Period really messed things up. In that regard Europe is different from Asia, where there is a lot more continuity in the development of cultural traditions from the ancient past to the present day.

Not Online!!! wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I am very suprised Russia is not on this list.


Russia isn't actually very militarily successful. They have excellent defensive track records, but its not really anything specific to the nation. Its geography that makes invading Russia a bad idea.

In terms of actual warfare, Russia has mixed results in the W/L department. They are the best in the world at making practical military equipment though.


ehhhhhh, kinda disagree.
Their trackrecord only really went downhill after 1850.


Russia did pretty well after the 1850's as well. They pretty much kicked the Ottoman Empire out of the Balkans in the 1870's for example. It is only after about 1900 that Russia starts to go downhill because politically Russia was still pretty much stuck in the Middle Ages. And so it struggles to keep up economically and industrially with rapidly developing modern capitalist nations. This development already started much earlier of course, but around 1900 is the time at which it really starts to become problematic. The lack of reform (or the wrong implementation of reforms) and a few humiliating defeats at the hands of more industrialised nations then leads to discontent with the rule of the tsar and you know the rest of the story.
Overall, Russia has a very successful military record, building up one of the world's largest empires, maintaining it for a long time, and defeating numerous invasions. Not to mention that the Russian military has a very notorious track record of successfully invading (and then often refusing to leave again) other countries as well. Russian armies have marched victorious across the width and breadth of Europe (and much of Asia) several times. I just don't think Russia has the most successful record. Russia had its share of military setbacks and defeats as well, the Russo-Japanese war and WW1 probably being the most humiliating. Not to mention that Russia is a relatively young state (a bit over a 1000 years old) so it doesn't have the impressive track record of an ancient empire like China.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 21:20:38


Post by: queen_annes_revenge


Your list seems kind of random. I think you need to make your parameters smaller/clearer.

At first I though it was a list of empires. For example, empire wise great Britain, Spain, even the Netherlands and France all had decent territories. Then how far back do you go, you've got the mongol empire, the ottomans, the Romans, Persians.

Then you seem to include some underdog nations, yet don't mention Afghanistan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
This is utter nonsense.

When has Russia ever been conquered by a foreign power? Did the Brits / Germans / Italians ever beat them? Nope.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Great Britain

Despite the poor weather, awful teeth, and penchant for tea , this small island in the North Atlantic succeeded in creating the biggest empire the world has ever seen. 90% of the world's nations have at one time been invaded by the British.
Many have stood against Britain, few have succeeded...


LOL. Lost half of one Continent to a bunch of rag-tag rebels. Lost an entire subcontinent to a dude who refuse to fight. Didn't have the balls to go against China in the 1990s. Had to be bailed out by America twice, or they'd the speaking German. Barely managed a fight over a little island near Argentina. Losers, never seem to have managed to ever win a fight against a real power.


Let's not start on the world wars. where the US definitely don't wait until the opponent is dazed on the ropes then steps in with the knockout... We saw the Germans off with a few toffs in aeroplanes.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 21:37:49


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Greece is still Greece, for example.

Actually, for much of its history "Greece" was Rome. Greece is a very young nation.
Ancient Greece was neither a single nation nor a state. Then the region became part of the Roman Empire and eventually it became the Roman Empire's heartland. Then eventually it became part of the Ottoman Empire. Then in the 19th century, ethnic nationalism becomes very popular and takes hold among Greek-speaking people as well. A part of Greece subsequently manages to break free and becomes the Greek nation-state. All this while there are lots of population movements and cultural changes in the area that is now Greece. There is no continuity between Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire and modern Greece.

The same thing is true for Ancient Rome and modern Italy. There is no continuity. There is lots of different peoples, cultures and states in between. The only thing Italy has in common with Ancient Rome is that it is located in the same geographical area as the Ancient Roman heartland. Beyond that they have no more links to Ancient Rome than say Greece, France, Romania or Spain.

And this goes for any modern European culture really. There is little to no continuity between ancient and modern cultures in all of Europe. The Migration Period really messed things up. In that regard Europe is different from Asia, where there is a lot more continuity in the development of cultural traditions from the ancient past to the present day.

Not Online!!! wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I am very suprised Russia is not on this list.


Russia isn't actually very militarily successful. They have excellent defensive track records, but its not really anything specific to the nation. Its geography that makes invading Russia a bad idea.

In terms of actual warfare, Russia has mixed results in the W/L department. They are the best in the world at making practical military equipment though.


ehhhhhh, kinda disagree.
Their trackrecord only really went downhill after 1850.


Russia did pretty well after the 1850's as well. They pretty much kicked the Ottoman Empire out of the Balkans in the 1870's for example. It is only after about 1900 that Russia starts to go downhill because politically Russia was still pretty much stuck in the Middle Ages. And so it struggles to keep up economically and industrially with rapidly developing modern capitalist nations. This development already started much earlier of course, but around 1900 is the time at which it really starts to become problematic. The lack of reform (or the wrong implementation of reforms) and a few humiliating defeats at the hands of more industrialised nations then leads to discontent with the rule of the tsar and you know the rest of the story.
Overall, Russia has a very successful military record, building up one of the world's largest empires, maintaining it for a long time, and defeating numerous invasions. Not to mention that the Russian military has a very notorious track record of successfully invading (and then often refusing to leave again) other countries as well. Russian armies have marched victorious across the width and breadth of Europe (and much of Asia) several times. I just don't think Russia has the most successful record. Russia had its share of military setbacks and defeats as well, the Russo-Japanese war and WW1 probably being the most humiliating. Not to mention that Russia is a relatively young state (a bit over a 1000 years old) so it doesn't have the impressive track record of an ancient empire like China.


The ottomans don't count for much though, especially after 1800.

Don't to mention the Russo-Japanese war. That one does not count as a war, more as a commedy show. Well the russian Navy.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 21:41:41


Post by: Vaktathi


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
T
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Great Britain

Despite the poor weather, awful teeth, and penchant for tea , this small island in the North Atlantic succeeded in creating the biggest empire the world has ever seen. 90% of the world's nations have at one time been invaded by the British.
Many have stood against Britain, few have succeeded...


LOL. Lost half of one Continent to a bunch of rag-tag rebels. Lost an entire subcontinent to a dude who refuse to fight. Didn't have the balls to go against China in the 1990s. Had to be bailed out by America twice, or they'd the speaking German. Barely managed a fight over a little island near Argentina. Losers, never seem to have managed to ever win a fight against a real power.


says the country that never won a war by itself


I'm sorry, but did we actually need anyone else to defeat the Nazis? No, we did not, but it didn't hurt to have them along for the ride.
Given that 80% of all German casualties in the second world war were sustained on the Eastern Front, and 90% of ground forces, and that the UK was the logistical and command center of all US operations in Europe, the question of a decisive victory over the Nazi's by a lone US resulting in the same unconditional surrender is a very open thing.

As for the UK, there's a lot to throw at the UK, and the UK deserves a lot of it, but the UK was never much in direct danger of ever being forced to speak German, much less twice in a row, in WW1 the worst that would have happened would have been a German-favorable negotiated continental settlement, and in WW2 much the same thing, particularly as Sea Lion was never going to really get going and was unlikely to work. Not sure why they would have fought China in the 1990's unless we're talking about Hong Kong, but that handover had been long planned and the UK was not going to win a fight trying to keep it if they tried that option. As for losing India, military force was not going to keep India, that tool was not going to work, especially not by a UK that had just been through two of the largest wars in human history (and the UK only discharged its final WW1 debt a couple years ago).


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 21:43:02


Post by: Not Online!!!


Also the track record for China is mostly due to China vs China.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
WW1 would have had an actual feasible possibility for a german landing. Hochseeflotte was waaaaaaay bigger then the Kriegsmarine in Ww2.

That said WW1 landing techniques are the slowed stepchild of omaha beach.
I mean look at gallipoli. So i guess your right.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 22:59:10


Post by: epronovost


Currently, the current State with the largest numbers of victory in major wars and battles it fought is France. They won over 70% of their major wars and battles, making them slightly better then its closest competitor in Europe for example. Swedes and Swiss also have very good records but. American nations are a bit young to truly compare with European, North African and Asian ones and only the USA has participated in a sizeable amount of major wars. Canada has an excellent record, but it has lived very few major conflict and battles. Many of Canadians military victory were also won during its colonial era when its tally of victory can be lumped into those of France even though most of the actual fighting was done by Canadians and their native american allies.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/06 22:59:59


Post by: Mr Morden


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
T
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Great Britain

Despite the poor weather, awful teeth, and penchant for tea , this small island in the North Atlantic succeeded in creating the biggest empire the world has ever seen. 90% of the world's nations have at one time been invaded by the British.
Many have stood against Britain, few have succeeded...


LOL. Lost half of one Continent to a bunch of rag-tag rebels. Lost an entire subcontinent to a dude who refuse to fight. Didn't have the balls to go against China in the 1990s. Had to be bailed out by America twice, or they'd the speaking German. Barely managed a fight over a little island near Argentina. Losers, never seem to have managed to ever win a fight against a real power.


says the country that never won a war by itself


I'm sorry, but did we actually need anyone else to defeat the Nazis? No, we did not, but it didn't hurt to have them along for the ride.


Needed the French Navy and Army to win the revolution (or as some have called it the first American Civil war) though.......but that tends to be forgotten

LOL. Lost half of one Continent to a bunch of rag-tag rebels.


One of the many big lies in history.

WW1 - Britain was never going to loose but having the Americans made victory quicker.

WW2 - yep UK was dead without the US - thats agreed. The Gernams did not need to invade - without US help UK would have been starved, even if it did cost the nation an awful lot during and after the war.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/07 01:06:08


Post by: MarsNZ


I get the whole "Surrender Monkey" memes are real popular for some reason but Frankia/France should really be on the list.

Apart from WW2 - in which one could argue their allies left them behind while hastily fleeing the continent - they actually have a pretty extensive and successful military history from Tours to Verdun.

"Most deadliest" would probably be the Wehrmacht. I'm not sure if the USA has quite managed (through no lack of trying) to equal them in total bodycount quite yet.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Good point, and it's one of the reasons why IMO, Canada is on the list. They have repelled invasions, but they have also attacked other nations, and been successful. Some nations have obviously only attacked in self-defence. But Canada has demonstrated skill in both attack and defence.


By this logic New Zealand is an equally illustrious military power. NZ attacked whoever our masters dictated needed attacking, and defended the Empire when called upon. First country to seize territory from the Central Powers in 1914. Ok it was Samoa and had a garrison for ~5 soldiers but whatever. No armed enemy has ever set foot on NZ soil or even flown overhead (this is where we beat the Aussies ha!). Isolation makes a bunch of stuff possible.



Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/07 01:22:31


Post by: epronovost


 MarsNZ wrote:
I get the whole "Surrender Monkey" memes are real popular for some reason but Frankia/France should really be on the list.

Apart from WW2 - in which one could argue their allies left them behind while hastily fleeing the continent - they actually have a pretty extensive and successful military history from Tours to Verdun.



While the official French government surrendered, a government in exile with control of its colonies and oversee department was formed and continued to fight the war, won several major battle in North Africa and Italy before forming the official French government after the war. When Germany capitulated at the end of the war, this French government was there to sign it with the other allied forces. The idea that France surrendered and lost WWII is a slight exaggeration because of that. Officially, they won it. They just suffered catastrophic defeat at its start.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/07 01:26:06


Post by: Ketara


Not Online!!! wrote:

WW1 would have had an actual feasible possibility for a german landing. Hochseeflotte was waaaaaaay bigger then the Kriegsmarine in Ww2.


Can you define what you mean here by 'feasible' and 'landing'? The German Navy could have attempted to smuggle a small force of say, 40,000 men across the North Sea on cruise liners timed to an unexpected declaration of war sometime in July 1914, perhaps. They wouldn't have managed much else. At which point the German force would have been immediately cut off from resupply, surrounded, and forced to capitulate by the BEF (by far one of, if not the most professional force in Europe at that time).

Certainly prior to the actual immediate outbreak of WWI, the Fleet was on high alert and would have intercepted anything even remotely resembling a German army. The British public were fanatically alive to covering this sort of eventuality after Le Queux played his word games.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/07 02:54:14


Post by: MarsNZ


epronovost wrote:
 MarsNZ wrote:
I get the whole "Surrender Monkey" memes are real popular for some reason but Frankia/France should really be on the list.

Apart from WW2 - in which one could argue their allies left them behind while hastily fleeing the continent - they actually have a pretty extensive and successful military history from Tours to Verdun.



While the official French government surrendered, a government in exile with control of its colonies and oversee department was formed and continued to fight the war, won several major battle in North Africa and Italy before forming the official French government after the war. When Germany capitulated at the end of the war, this French government was there to sign it with the other allied forces. The idea that France surrendered and lost WWII is a slight exaggeration because of that. Officially, they won it. They just suffered catastrophic defeat at its start.


Yes but the same could be said for Poland. Belgium, Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, pretty much any occupied nation. Their militaries, which are the subject of discussion, were soundly defeated in the field. Another slight exaggeration would be implying France defeated the Axis in North Africa by itself after the armistice.

Not a great innings for France in this particular war but pretty unfair to judge their military history entirely on 6 weeks in the Summer of 1940.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/07 03:10:10


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 MarsNZ wrote:
I get the whole "Surrender Monkey" memes are real popular for some reason but Frankia/France should really be on the list.

Apart from WW2 - in which one could argue their allies left them behind while hastily fleeing the continent - they actually have a pretty extensive and successful military history from Tours to Verdun.


... and Vietnam!

Oh, wait...


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/07 03:12:46


Post by: DominayTrix


Israel should really be on this list. If they ever lost a defensive war they flat out wouldn’t exist. Most of their conflicts are victories despite taking on multiple foreign powers. They have one true loss which resulted in them leaving Lebanon. They have a handful of stalemate/both sides claiming victory. They may not have a history that reaches as far back as Britain etc, but they have more or less been in conflict since day 1.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/07 03:28:57


Post by: thekingofkings


Russia

Defeated the Mongols
Defeated the Ottomans
Defeated the Nazis
Defeated Napolean
Defeated Japan (WW2)
Defeated Sweden


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/07 04:25:12


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


I voted for Germany/Prussia. . .

Since in your OP you linked Rome and Italy as one thing, I'm doing the same.

So. . . you have the Germanic tribes who for so many years were a thorn in Rome's side, replacing them eventually is the Holy Roman Empire with the German Landsknechte, who were renowned throughout Europe for fierce fighting, even so far as sacking Rome, and doing a lot of the fighting during the Italian Wars. Then there's the 30 Years' War, the Peasants' War and so many conflicts aside that establish a strong military tradition from the top of society to the bottom. Adding in later actions, leading up to the Unification in the 1870s, rapid colonization, to the point where from the 1870s to 1914, they developed an empire to try to rival that of England and France (granted they were clearly the third empire at that point).

Then there's of course fighting a 2 front war on two separate occasions, fighting for several years beyond expectations during WW1 and WW2.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/07 04:35:19


Post by: Argive


Why no Romans? :(


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/07 06:30:32


Post by: queen_annes_revenge


 DominayTrix wrote:
Israel should really be on this list. If they ever lost a defensive war they flat out wouldn’t exist. Most of their conflicts are victories despite taking on multiple foreign powers. They have one true loss which resulted in them leaving Lebanon. They have a handful of stalemate/both sides claiming victory. They may not have a history that reaches as far back as Britain etc, but they have more or less been in conflict since day 1.


Good point. Theirs is probably the best military pound fot pound too


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/07 06:54:45


Post by: DeathKorp_Rider


The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 MarsNZ wrote:
I get the whole "Surrender Monkey" memes are real popular for some reason but Frankia/France should really be on the list.

Apart from WW2 - in which one could argue their allies left them behind while hastily fleeing the continent - they actually have a pretty extensive and successful military history from Tours to Verdun.


... and Vietnam!

Oh, wait...


Your forgot their ejection from their own colony in Algeria.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/07 07:00:46


Post by: Excommunicatus


Yep. CCCP, for sure.

Russia did not defeat the Wehrmacht, or the Nazis. Russia did not defeat Japan in 1945.

The CCCP did.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/07 07:34:57


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I voted for Germany/Prussia. . .

Since in your OP you linked Rome and Italy as one thing, I'm doing the same.

So. . . you have the Germanic tribes who for so many years were a thorn in Rome's side, replacing them eventually is the Holy Roman Empire with the German Landsknechte, who were renowned throughout Europe for fierce fighting, even so far as sacking Rome, and doing a lot of the fighting during the Italian Wars. Then there's the 30 Years' War, the Peasants' War and so many conflicts aside that establish a strong military tradition from the top of society to the bottom. Adding in later actions, leading up to the Unification in the 1870s, rapid colonization, to the point where from the 1870s to 1914, they developed an empire to try to rival that of England and France (granted they were clearly the third empire at that point).

Then there's of course fighting a 2 front war on two separate occasions, fighting for several years beyond expectations during WW1 and WW2.



Hahahaha, landsknechte beeing worth something.

They are the chinese bootleg version of Reisläufer, copying strategy and weaponry, whilest still failing miserably against Reisläufer. Look at the swabian war / Schweizer war.


Also The HRE includes the czech, Belgians, dutch, germans, austrians and swiss, aswell as italians.

Out of these the victories for the HRE ought to be counted for the emperor, the habsburgs, ergo austria.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/07 11:02:05


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just to make a point about the British Empire, it's true that the later colonial period -- the so-called "Scramble for Africa" -- had the British with breech-loading rifles, Maxim guns and cannons against tribal warriors with muskets and spears.

The earlier period when the British conquered India was a lot more evenly balanced. The native armies not only had access to the same "modern" (of the time) weapons, they also had drill from European mercenaries, as well as vast numbers (though mostly formed and armed in antique style.)

Thus, battles like Clive's and Wellesley's were won against significant opposition, and this realistically was the situation until the later 19th century.




With all due respect to your first point, in the entire history of the world, nobody has ever said: we have better weapons and technology than these guys, we'd better not conquer them, as it's not a fair fight.

Had highly advanced African tribes turned up in a stone age Britain, they'd have happily pointed the Maxims at us. it's human nature.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DominayTrix wrote:
Israel should really be on this list. If they ever lost a defensive war they flat out wouldn’t exist. Most of their conflicts are victories despite taking on multiple foreign powers. They have one true loss which resulted in them leaving Lebanon. They have a handful of stalemate/both sides claiming victory. They may not have a history that reaches as far back as Britain etc, but they have more or less been in conflict since day 1.



Again, Israel was another of those 50/50 nations. Modern Israel is a hard nut to crack, but Biblical Israel? They were always getting invaded or overrun.

So, sorry to say, that diminishes their success in my book


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Argive wrote:
Why no Romans? :(


They're under the Italy category.

But we're syill undecided as to Italy being the 'successor' to Roman achivements.

In my book it is, because Rome the city has endured for centuries, so there is that unbroken link to the past.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Laughing Man wrote:
I mean, if we're going off pure WLD here, Alexander the Great tops the list, given that he was never defeated in battle.



I was going to include Macedonia. but then I remembered Colin Farrell's mullet


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/07 13:00:56


Post by: Argive


Maybe if we looked as what was the most badass empire.

Problem is you can't compare British Empire to say Alexanders Macedonians or the Huns.. Its apples and Oranges.

Perhaps another discussion some mother time divided by eras/technology age maybe.
My vote went to the mongols simply due to the sheer landmass, population under rule given the very limited technology of its time. The messaging relay stations and laws were very smart and ahead of their game but also a throwback to the way Romans did things in parallel.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/07 16:20:27


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


Not Online!!! wrote:


Hahahaha, landsknechte beeing worth something.

They are the chinese bootleg version of Reisläufer, copying strategy and weaponry, whilest still failing miserably against Reisläufer. Look at the swabian war / Schweizer war.



Just because people copied each other's tactics and armaments does not make automatically inferior. . . In that time period you had the Swiss, the Germans, and the Spanish Tercio who were all sought after for their military services. . . .And I was not in any way saying that the Landsknechte were the end all be all. I said they were well respected.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/07 16:24:25


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 DominayTrix wrote:
Israel should really be on this list.


Again, Israel was another of those 50/50 nations. Modern Israel is a hard nut to crack, but Biblical Israel? They were always getting invaded or overrun.

 Argive wrote:
Why no Romans? :(


They're under the Italy category.

But we're syill undecided as to Italy being the 'successor' to Roman achivements.

In my book it is, because Rome the city has endured for centuries, so there is that unbroken link to the past.


If you count Rome as Italy, then Jerusalem is Israel, and Israel are definitely not badasses - they're just guys who spent 40 YEARS wandering the desert.

The existence of a city for centuries is not the same as having some sort of functional state for the entire duration. Italy is NOT Rome.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/07 16:44:34


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:


Hahahaha, landsknechte beeing worth something.

They are the chinese bootleg version of Reisläufer, copying strategy and weaponry, whilest still failing miserably against Reisläufer. Look at the swabian war / Schweizer war.



Just because people copied each other's tactics and armaments does not make automatically inferior. . . In that time period you had the Swiss, the Germans, and the Spanish Tercio who were all sought after for their military services. . . .And I was not in any way saying that the Landsknechte were the end all be all. I said they were well respected.



You know how Swissgermans named Landsknechte?
Sauschwabe---> Pigswabian.
Why because swabians were the one to generate the most Landsknechte.
(ironically they also named us Cowswiss/ Kuhschweizer and both insults are still in use when we annoy each other , granted we swiss have transfered the use to somewhat refer to the whole "Big Kanton" Germany. )

Infact the war preciscly started because both sides were competeing within the mercenary market. Supposedly the Swabians insulted the swiss in a standoff over a river, which lead to a Urner crossing said river and burning down some stuff. Infact the whole war and a lot of skirmishes inbetween the bigger battles were instigated by insults thrown at each other.

The war ended in 13'000 dead HRE /Landsknechte vs 2'500 dead swiss, whilest the HRE was outnumbering the old confederacy 2:1

________________
This war also has kind of an ironic undertone since Swabians and swiss germans are about as close as you can get inbetween germanics.




Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/07 17:54:09


Post by: War Drone


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
LOL. Lost half of one Continent to a bunch of rag-tag rebels. Lost an entire subcontinent to a dude who refuse to fight. Didn't have the balls to go against China in the 1990s. Had to be bailed out by America twice, or they'd the speaking German. Barely managed a fight over a little island near Argentina. Losers, never seem to have managed to ever win a fight against a real power.


Removed - Rule #1 please


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/11 03:56:44


Post by: Orlanth


I would have to go with the British for arse kicking over time. They lasted, notably prickly with the bill and the longbow, still prickly in the nuclear age.

Won nearly all the wars they were involved with, not successfully invaded for over 950 years, despite multiple serious threats, dominated the sea. Dominated the planet for almost a full century so that nobody wanted to take them on.
Kicked arse even when incompetently led because the basic soldiery is tougher than most. Rorke's Drift, Thin Red Line other feats largely due to managing through blunders. Extemely dangerous when the British are blessed (sadly rarely) with an exceptional leader.
Very, very, rarely ran away.
Kept it up for centuries.

The British kept every other European power in check, except Portugal whose Imperial possessions had a guarantee due to an alliance going back 600 years and ongoing, the oldest military alliance in history.

Lost the Empire due to a change of the conditions of the world, when all similar empires crumbled.

The British soldier is still a fine fighting instrument today. Our American cousins don't like to admit this but in exercises there are given 3:1 odds and still lose, time and again. There is an tournament between West Point and Sandhurst every year, The Americans had won only once as of my last update. Though I would not be surprised if post New Labour the 'safe space' generation if this has changed.

That being said. Israel is pound for pound the best fighting force on the planet, and that came from nowhere. And Germans give the British serious problems, though they stayed in the fight, mainly through superior organisation, the German soldier isn't better, but the staff corps consistently is.

I would argue however the the British take the top spot for achieving what was achieved in spite of their lacklustre commanders and political leadership. And when they have someone like Nelson, you just have to stay out of the water. Like Napoleon learned.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/11 14:57:42


Post by: Strombones


I found a book in Afghanistan on the history of the British (well, English) soldier going all the way back to Agincourt....

It was pretty impressive. The Tommy certainly has a very long and storied history.

The US has had some pretty lethal moments in handing out ass whippings, but overall track record of "success" seems 50/50 at best. Though I suppose the nature of post ww2 "war", a far cry from the Athenian style of putting all males to the sword, made goals a bit more difficult to achieve.

I don't know. Very interesting stuff. Military effectiveness has always been a sincere interest of mine.

Also, WW2 in Europe was won by the sheer sacrifice of the Soviet Union. The western allies certainly did their part, but the Wehrmacht was bled white on the Russian steppes, its best officers lying in cold graves by mid 1943.

There is no chance in hell the US could have won that war on its own.

I might have to hand it to the Canucks. They've never lost a war!


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/11 15:27:11


Post by: queen_annes_revenge


 Orlanth wrote:
I would have to go with the British for arse kicking over time. They lasted, notably prickly with the bill and the longbow, still prickly in the nuclear age.

Won nearly all the wars they were involved with, not successfully invaded for over 950 years, despite multiple serious threats, dominated the sea. Dominated the planet for almost a full century so that nobody wanted to take them on.
Kicked arse even when incompetently led because the basic soldiery is tougher than most. Rorke's Drift, Thin Red Line other feats largely due to managing through blunders. Extemely dangerous when the British are blessed (sadly rarely) with an exceptional leader.
Very, very, rarely ran away.
Kept it up for centuries.

The British kept every other European power in check, except Portugal whose Imperial possessions had a guarantee due to an alliance going back 600 years and ongoing, the oldest military alliance in history.

Lost the Empire due to a change of the conditions of the world, when all similar empires crumbled.

The British soldier is still a fine fighting instrument today. Our American cousins don't like to admit this but in exercises there are given 3:1 odds and still lose, time and again. There is an tournament between West Point and Sandhurst every year, The Americans had won only once as of my last update. Though I would not be surprised if post New Labour the 'safe space' generation if this has changed.


That being said. Israel is pound for pound the best fighting force on the planet, and that came from nowhere. And Germans give the British serious problems, though they stayed in the fight, mainly through superior organisation, the German soldier isn't better, but the staff corps consistently is.

I would argue however the the British take the top spot for achieving what was achieved in spite of their lacklustre commanders and political leadership. And when they have someone like Nelson, you just have to stay out of the water. Like Napoleon learned.


We can also operate on a shoestring while the yankees tend to depend on billions of dollars worth of kit. Not putting them down here by any means, but kit and equipment wise we're like the poor kid at school on free lunches compared to the spoilt guy with the new trainers, yet we still generally end up with better numbers.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/11 15:59:29


Post by: Orlanth


 queen_annes_revenge wrote:


We can also operate on a shoestring while the yankees tend to depend on billions of dollars worth of kit. Not putting them down here by any means, but kit and equipment wise we're like the poor kid at school on free lunches compared to the spoilt guy with the new trainers, yet we still generally end up with better numbers.


If only that were true, even the Americans are paragons of spending efficiency compared to the British. Furthermore our spending priorities are notably skewed. Our soldiers are, and have been, decent in spite of this not because of this.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/11 16:05:32


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Orlanth wrote:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:


We can also operate on a shoestring while the yankees tend to depend on billions of dollars worth of kit. Not putting them down here by any means, but kit and equipment wise we're like the poor kid at school on free lunches compared to the spoilt guy with the new trainers, yet we still generally end up with better numbers.


If only that were true, even the Americans are paragons of spending efficiency compared to the British. Furthermore our spending priorities are notably skewed. Our soldiers are, and have been, decent in spite of this not because of this.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA80


Like this one?
I mean by all means america literally wastes money, it seems like their tanks use money as literal fuel. That said, atleast they manufacture rifles that actually , you know, work.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/11 16:14:50


Post by: queen_annes_revenge


Doesnt that kind of prove my point? and you're preaching to the converted mate. there are much better rifles out there that we could've, and should now be looking at. however, the L85 gets more stick than it deserves. its definitely not as bad as its portrayed in the media, especially since the upgrades. it has a lot of decent properties, the bullpup design is much better militarily than the conventional layout of the M4 variants for example.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/11 16:19:23


Post by: Not Online!!!


 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Doesnt that kind of prove my point? and you're preaching to the converted mate. there are much better rifles out there that we could've, and should now be looking at. however, the L85 gets more stick than it deserves. its definitely not as bad as its portrayed in the media, especially since the upgrades. it has a lot of decent properties, the bullpup design is much better militarily than the conventional layout of the M4 variants for example.


TBF: Germany also recently learned that they can't produce rifles anymore sooooo.....

And no it does not, because your military wasted loads of money on NON-functional rifles, literally. As for the bullpub, not a fan off, well not of the Steyr one anyways.
Then again i also would like to talk to the hero that designed the barrel on my STGW90. I mean you can literally throw the whole rifle around but dare to look strange at the barrel of it, instantly a banana in it.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/11 16:30:14


Post by: queen_annes_revenge


really? thats interesting seeing as H&K are one of the biggest weapon manufacturers outside the US.



Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/11 16:38:12


Post by: Not Online!!!


 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
really? thats interesting seeing as H&K are one of the biggest weapon manufacturers outside the US.



Well, it was a combination of:

A: Corruption and interest of politicians.

B: Terrible planning and purchase politics of the Bundeswehr, which tbh, the german army atm can't even find enough guns for a Parade visit of foreign statesmen.

C: Completely ignored all experience that frontline soldiers had

D: Consequently replaced the G3 model with the G36 which is just bad supposedly.

This is on top of the terrible standing the BW has in their society, the terrible and questionable support of Veterans, the constant underfundedness and equipment lacking, etc.
Heck they sent their tanks with Broomsticks instead of barrels to a Nato training.

Ironically this was also the year one of their politicians threatened us with the "cavallery" if we would not stop the Banking secret.....



Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/11 17:13:27


Post by: Captain Joystick


Speaking as a Canadian, we do take pride in being able to maximize the quality of small elite forces but we also do so with the understanding that we don't have the population base or political will to do otherwise.

It's always kind of sticky to talk about the reasons why, but after WW2 Canadians never stopped thinking about how many Canadians would inevitably killed in any foreign conflict they entered - so in addition to a very American sense of wanting to win every war we enter, we also want to be, without question, doing something worth the lives of all the people who'll inevitably die in the attempt. Because we always assume if even one soldier dies its going to be the one we care about most.

So I don't think we're as militarily successful as we could have been, or as much as some countries in this list, but I don't think we want to be?

The nomination is appreciated, of course!

 Grey Templar wrote:
Similarly, the US invasion of Canada during the War of 1812 was more of an indictment of the bad shape of the US army at the time and not any special skill on the part of Canada. Incompetent baboons would have been capable of conquering Canada with what the US had at the time, the US generals showed absurd levels of failure.


Is that how it gets characterized in American history classes? I admit our version is hardly impartial but we at least gave your boys some credit regarding tactics employed, territory gained and reclaimed, etc.

Had a whole unit on it in high school, wish I could remember the details but it all bleeds together with the attempts to take Montreal and Quebec during the Revolutionary War. It's be fun to compare textbooks this far in the future.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/11 17:29:45


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
We can also operate on a shoestring while the yankees tend to depend on billions of dollars worth of kit.


Given that America is basically paying for the security of the world, sure... But if you were to go back to paying for the world's blue water military, it'd be the other way 'round.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/11 19:35:42


Post by: Vaktathi


 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Doesnt that kind of prove my point? and you're preaching to the converted mate. there are much better rifles out there that we could've, and should now be looking at. however, the L85 gets more stick than it deserves. its definitely not as bad as its portrayed in the media, especially since the upgrades. it has a lot of decent properties, the bullpup design is much better militarily than the conventional layout of the M4 variants for example.
Hrm, the L85A1 deserves everything it got. The A2 is a far more reliable and functional weapon, but the A1 really was as bad as it was made out to be

On the topic of Bullpups, they are compromises, they can be more compact than traditional layouts for the same barrel length, but tend to be a bit more awkward to manipulate with atrocious triggers that hamper accuracy. They are preferred by forces spending most of their time in vehicles and buildings where space is at a premium and engagement distances very short, but many, if not most forces that adopt bullpups tend to transition back to a traditional layout rifle later (e.g. France, NZ, etc which are transitioning to AR pattern rifles from HK and LMT). As is, between the M4 and the L85, overall length is about identical due to the M4s shorter barrel relative to the older M16 and L85 with their 20" barrels. I have a Tavor SAR and a Beretta CX4 I both really enjoy (both bullpups), but if I'm having to try and hit difficult targets or do lots of weapons manipulations I'd much rather have something like an AR/M4.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/11 20:00:15


Post by: Ketara


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
We can also operate on a shoestring while the yankees tend to depend on billions of dollars worth of kit.


Given that America is basically paying for the security of the world


I'm not sure 'America's security' and 'the World's security' are quite the same thing.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/11 20:25:00


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 Ketara wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
We can also operate on a shoestring while the yankees tend to depend on billions of dollars worth of kit.


Given that America is basically paying for the security of the world


I'm not sure 'America's security' and 'the World's security' are quite the same thing.


You're either with us, or against us!

'Murikkka!


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/11 21:19:42


Post by: queen_annes_revenge


My comment wasn't meant in a negative way really. I've worked with my counterparts in yankee EOD, and the amount of kit they had was crazy, compared to us. They had a gizmo that they wired into training ieds which would make a loud bang and tell the operator if they messed up, whereas we don't tend to use things like that when we could just have some grizzly staff sgt stood over you saying, 'you just killed yourself'


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/11 21:42:44


Post by: Not Online!!!


 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
My comment wasn't meant in a negative way really. I've worked with my counterparts in yankee EOD, and the amount of kit they had was crazy, compared to us. They had a gizmo that they wired into training ieds which would make a loud bang and tell the operator if they messed up, whereas we don't tend to use things like that when we could just have some grizzly staff sgt stood over you saying, 'you just killed yourself'


You have drill sargents? We just use NCO candidates


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/12 02:05:40


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
My comment wasn't meant in a negative way really. I've worked with my counterparts in yankee EOD, and the amount of kit they had was crazy, compared to us. They had a gizmo that they wired into training ieds which would make a loud bang and tell the operator if they messed up, whereas we don't tend to use things like that when we could just have some grizzly staff sgt stood over you saying, 'you just killed yourself'


Had a couple EOD mates while I was in, and in a general sense, sure, they (and we) have a lot of toys, but most of the time my friends who were called out to defuse/disarm or otherwise "unboom" a boomy situation, they'd used tried and true methods, like rocks, or shooting it.

On the flip side, while I was in, I knew plenty of people who couldn't survive without loads of gizmos and toys, but I do agree with your point: many of y'all commonwealth types have my personal respect as y'all operate without a lot of the big spending (and occasional big spending blunders) that we do in the US, and in many ways, operate quite well.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/12 02:18:06


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Not Online!!! wrote:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
My comment wasn't meant in a negative way really. I've worked with my counterparts in yankee EOD, and the amount of kit they had was crazy, compared to us. They had a gizmo that they wired into training ieds which would make a loud bang and tell the operator if they messed up, whereas we don't tend to use things like that when we could just have some grizzly staff sgt stood over you saying, 'you just killed yourself'


You have drill sargents? We just use NCO candidates


That's one hell of a PASS/FAIL promotion test...

I mean, being blown into red mist is a hell of a way to fail.

OTOH, ensuring they can do EOD work is a sure way to ensure that every NCO can be cool under pressure.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/12 07:43:22


Post by: Not Online!!!


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
My comment wasn't meant in a negative way really. I've worked with my counterparts in yankee EOD, and the amount of kit they had was crazy, compared to us. They had a gizmo that they wired into training ieds which would make a loud bang and tell the operator if they messed up, whereas we don't tend to use things like that when we could just have some grizzly staff sgt stood over you saying, 'you just killed yourself'


You have drill sargents? We just use NCO candidates


That's one hell of a PASS/FAIL promotion test...

I mean, being blown into red mist is a hell of a way to fail.

OTOH, ensuring they can do EOD work is a sure way to ensure that every NCO can be cool under pressure.


Keep in mind we do learn, how to handle most stuff but since we are built as a militia army, we kinda just use often more a compressed Rank and duties system.

I mean the highest you can get is general.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/12 10:07:02


Post by: Orlanth


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
My comment wasn't meant in a negative way really. I've worked with my counterparts in yankee EOD, and the amount of kit they had was crazy, compared to us. They had a gizmo that they wired into training ieds which would make a loud bang and tell the operator if they messed up, whereas we don't tend to use things like that when we could just have some grizzly staff sgt stood over you saying, 'you just killed yourself'


You have drill sargents? We just use NCO candidates


That's one hell of a PASS/FAIL promotion test...

I mean, being blown into red mist is a hell of a way to fail.

OTOH, ensuring they can do EOD work is a sure way to ensure that every NCO can be cool under pressure.


Heard a story from a Royal Marine of a cautionary tale from a grenade throwing exercise, this was from the 80's when they had the budget to use actual grenades. One marine didn't seal his cuffs, pulled the pin and the grenade slipped as he raised his arm tho throw it, and went down his sleeve. The sergeant watching simply said "you're dead" and dodged behind the safety barrier.
Quite a mess apparently.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/12 10:20:39


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Oof. That's a bad way to go


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/12 10:32:28


Post by: Not Online!!!


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Oof. That's a bad way to go


We have heard stories here about bets beeing made who would throw them the closest and show Courage.

Then there is also the story of my grandfather who's squad mate had some serious bad blood with his superior and decided during a life ammo training to shoot at the superior.


In short, i guess military training has a tendency to bring out the worst / dumbest in people.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/12 13:12:00


Post by: queen_annes_revenge


 Orlanth wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
My comment wasn't meant in a negative way really. I've worked with my counterparts in yankee EOD, and the amount of kit they had was crazy, compared to us. They had a gizmo that they wired into training ieds which would make a loud bang and tell the operator if they messed up, whereas we don't tend to use things like that when we could just have some grizzly staff sgt stood over you saying, 'you just killed yourself'


You have drill sargents? We just use NCO candidates


That's one hell of a PASS/FAIL promotion test...

I mean, being blown into red mist is a hell of a way to fail.

OTOH, ensuring they can do EOD work is a sure way to ensure that every NCO can be cool under pressure.


Heard a story from a Royal Marine of a cautionary tale from a grenade throwing exercise, this was from the 80's when they had the budget to use actual grenades. One marine didn't seal his cuffs, pulled the pin and the grenade slipped as he raised his arm tho throw it, and went down his sleeve. The sergeant watching simply said "you're dead" and dodged behind the safety barrier.
Quite a mess apparently.


Sounds like that could be a tall tale. I cant see a grenade falling down a sleeve, unless he had wizard robes on or something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Orlanth wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
My comment wasn't meant in a negative way really. I've worked with my counterparts in yankee EOD, and the amount of kit they had was crazy, compared to us. They had a gizmo that they wired into training ieds which would make a loud bang and tell the operator if they messed up, whereas we don't tend to use things like that when we could just have some grizzly staff sgt stood over you saying, 'you just killed yourself'


You have drill sargents? We just use NCO candidates


That's one hell of a PASS/FAIL promotion test...

I mean, being blown into red mist is a hell of a way to fail.

OTOH, ensuring they can do EOD work is a sure way to ensure that every NCO can be cool under pressure.


Heard a story from a Royal Marine of a cautionary tale from a grenade throwing exercise, this was from the 80's when they had the budget to use actual grenades. One marine didn't seal his cuffs, pulled the pin and the grenade slipped as he raised his arm tho throw it, and went down his sleeve. The sergeant watching simply said "you're dead" and dodged behind the safety barrier.
Quite a mess apparently.


Sounds like that could be a tall tale. I cant see a grenade falling down a sleeve, unless he had wizard robes on or something.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/12 13:43:29


Post by: Orlanth


Training dress at the time was very baggy and had fastenable sleeves


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/16 19:06:13


Post by: trexmeyer


If you throwaway rules of engagement, but refrain from using WMDs (of any variety) the modern US Military is completely capable of going into pretty much any country and reducing it's infrastructure to rubble within months. Of course that's only if you go full scorched earth and don't give a damn about civilian casualties/collateral damage, which would never happen. I don't know if any other country has the global force projection to do that. Russia could in eastern Europe and the Caucasus at least. China could in east Asia probably.

Historically the British Empire was the largest followed by the Mongols, but neither lasted at their respective peaks for more than a century. The Roman Empire was much smaller, but controlled a more densely populated and culturally diverse region for centuries.

I think historically I would have to go with the British Empire.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/19 13:08:28


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


On the subject of Mongolia, doesn't Subutai still hold the world record for being the commander with the most amount of won pitched battles?


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/19 14:15:53


Post by: blood reaper


Germany? But no Russia or Soviet Union? God look at what the Soviets accomplished during the Civil War - not only defeating the counter-revolutionary/reactionary armies but a multitude of foreign interventionist forces.

And god I wish Wehrabooism would die out.

Spoiler:


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/19 15:24:45


Post by: Not Online!!!


 blood reaper wrote:
Germany? But no Russia or Soviet Union? God look at what the Soviets accomplished during the Civil War - not only defeating the counter-revolutionary/reactionary armies but a multitude of foreign interventionist forces.

And god I wish Wehrabooism would die out.


Now don't get me wrong but Russia had a really mixed performance, especially before the Soviet union and let's just not forget that Afghanistan first and foremost was a Soviet Failure.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/19 17:23:47


Post by: blood reaper


Not Online!!! wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Germany? But no Russia or Soviet Union? God look at what the Soviets accomplished during the Civil War - not only defeating the counter-revolutionary/reactionary armies but a multitude of foreign interventionist forces.

And god I wish Wehrabooism would die out.


Now don't get me wrong but Russia had a really mixed performance, especially before the Soviet union and let's just not forget that Afghanistan first and foremost was a Soviet Failure.


That's true but if we're going on 'mixed performances' then most of the powers shouldn't even be up there - especially not Germany.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/19 20:25:06


Post by: Not Online!!!


 blood reaper wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Germany? But no Russia or Soviet Union? God look at what the Soviets accomplished during the Civil War - not only defeating the counter-revolutionary/reactionary armies but a multitude of foreign interventionist forces.

And god I wish Wehrabooism would die out.


Now don't get me wrong but Russia had a really mixed performance, especially before the Soviet union and let's just not forget that Afghanistan first and foremost was a Soviet Failure.


That's true but if we're going on 'mixed performances' then most of the powers shouldn't even be up there - especially not Germany.


Problem is germany kicks around since 1871.
Before that you have a bunch of german states mixed german states (cough Proto switzerland cough) that have a range from outstanding to highly questionable, F.e. Alot of people harp on for prussia, completly forgetting that they 2 times had phases were they got trounced hard and one time a significantly smaller nation threathened to start unification against monarchies in germany.

Before that you have the HRE which actually has a fairly decent statistic until Napoléon kicks it around.
And no the HRE IS NOT KRAUTLAND.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/19 20:58:58


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Kinda missing the Ottoman and Mughal empires as well. DAMN they kicked a lot of ass.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/19 21:10:00


Post by: Not Online!!!


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Kinda missing the Ottoman and Mughal empires as well. DAMN they kicked a lot of ass.


Ayy until they tipped over.
Then they just kinda vegitated in losses.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/19 21:19:06


Post by: Elbows


Interesting thread, but it would have to be a much more narrow question to answer. Too many variables.

1) Is it strictly nation, or culture? As many existing nations were part of other countries or cultures before now, etc. (i.e the Rome/Italy issue...with the expanse of Rome being far greater than the mainland of Italy, etc.)
2) Is it based on wars vs. time in existence (i.e. Israel would top the charts)
3) Is it based on any certain continguous form of government, etc?
4) And how are defining success? Successfully carrying out an aggressive attack or war, or managing to defend oneself long enough to survive, etc.
5) Are we counting proxy wars, Cold Wars, advisors, etc. (adding more wins and losses to both the Soviet Union and America etc.)
6) Does the quality of the opponents matter? While generally overstated it's common to dismiss any engagement between a more technology advanced nation and a lesser advanced nation.
7) Are we talking about heroic deeds and quality of the soldiers themselves, or just the end result? This really muddies the waters because - despite offending people - Germany, for instance outperformend almost every other nation in WW2 by almost any metric, but were obviously defeated.
8) Are we taking into account genuine impact of a nation (i.e. are we counting countries which inspired, impacted and informed the future of warfare well beyond their own abilities?)

Intriguing but too vague to really weigh in on, methinks.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/19 22:02:20


Post by: blood reaper


 Elbows wrote:
I
7) Are we talking about heroic deeds and quality of the soldiers themselves, or just the end result? This really muddies the waters because - despite offending people - Germany, for instance outperformend almost every other nation in WW2 by almost any metric, but were obviously defeated.


Except in bombing, production, strategy, tactics, equipment, science, Germany did outperform its enemies in its capacity to massacre civilians with roaming death squads and make horrendous strategic mistakes.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/19 22:12:35


Post by: Not Online!!!


 blood reaper wrote:
 Elbows wrote:
I
7) Are we talking about heroic deeds and quality of the soldiers themselves, or just the end result? This really muddies the waters because - despite offending people - Germany, for instance outperformend almost every other nation in WW2 by almost any metric, but were obviously defeated.


Except in bombing, production, strategy, tactics, equipment, science, Germany did outperform its enemies in its capacity to massacre civilians with roaming death squads and make horrendous strategic mistakes.


Actually, the uk did "better" then, as in their policy in india regarding food.



Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/19 22:13:24


Post by: Elbows


Ah, there's the old angry-dismissal...classic. Solid argument.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/19 22:17:37


Post by: blood reaper


Not Online!!! wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
 Elbows wrote:
I
7) Are we talking about heroic deeds and quality of the soldiers themselves, or just the end result? This really muddies the waters because - despite offending people - Germany, for instance outperformend almost every other nation in WW2 by almost any metric, but were obviously defeated.


Except in bombing, production, strategy, tactics, equipment, science, Germany did outperform its enemies in its capacity to massacre civilians with roaming death squads and make horrendous strategic mistakes.


Actually, the uk did "better" then, as in their policy in india regarding food.



Classic Axis apologism.

The Bengal Famine killed about 2.1-3 million people, a horrendous death toll - but largely the result of the Japanese seizing Burma.

Germany killed maybe 1.5 million Roma people alone. Then we've got 3 million Poles murdered in a variety of fashions. Added to that is the Hunger Plan in Ukraine (aimed at exterminating 20-30 million Soviet people,
but only ended up killing 4.2 million Soviet citizens, and around 3.3 million Soviet POWs (out of 5 million taken).

We've not even gotten to the rest of the 27 million Soviet dead, or the rest of the 5.5-6 million Jews.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/19 22:19:06


Post by: Not Online!!!


 blood reaper wrote:
 Elbows wrote:
I
7) Are we talking about heroic deeds and quality of the soldiers themselves, or just the end result? This really muddies the waters because - despite offending people - Germany, for instance outperformend almost every other nation in WW2 by almost any metric, but were obviously defeated.


Except in bombing, production, strategy, tactics, equipment, science, Germany did outperform its enemies in its capacity to massacre civilians with roaming death squads and make horrendous strategic mistakes.


Also don't forget a very important thing, alot of western occupied or allied countries did collaborate with the germans in delivering jews. F.e. France or most notably hungary but also romania, Holland, the Belgians etc.

Bulgaria was an exception insofar they didn't Budge, aswell as parts of the italian army.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/19 22:21:30


Post by: blood reaper


 Elbows wrote:
Ah, there's the old angry-dismissal...classic. Solid argument.


I provided a semblance of a counter argument to your old fashioned axis propaganda. But we can go into detail,

> German defeated largely weakling powers and sick men in 1939 and 1940. It outnumbered the Allies at France and was fighting a country riddled by political chaos
> Germany was not alone in the war and was heavily reliant on its allies (it could have never fought in the Soviet Union without Romanian oil, for instance)
> Germany's greatest victories were against a recently industrialised and chaotic state that, once reorganised, smashed the Germans
> Germany regularly suffered higher casualties than its enemies in the field on the Western Front

I would advise reading David Glantz or 'Wages of Destruction', they go into excellent detail about the disastrous nature of the German warmachine.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/19 22:21:34


Post by: Not Online!!!


 blood reaper wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
 Elbows wrote:
I
7) Are we talking about heroic deeds and quality of the soldiers themselves, or just the end result? This really muddies the waters because - despite offending people - Germany, for instance outperformend almost every other nation in WW2 by almost any metric, but were obviously defeated.


Except in bombing, production, strategy, tactics, equipment, science, Germany did outperform its enemies in its capacity to massacre civilians with roaming death squads and make horrendous strategic mistakes.


Actually, the uk did "better" then, as in their policy in india regarding food.



Classic Axis apologism.

The Bengal Famine killed about 2.1-3 million people, a horrendous death toll - but largely the result of the Japanese seizing Burma.

Germany killed maybe 1.5 million Roma people alone. Then we've got 3 million Poles murdered in a variety of fashions. Added to that is the Hunger Plan in Ukraine (aimed at exterminating 20-30 million Soviet people,
but only ended up killing 4.2 million Soviet citizens, and around 3.3 million Soviet POWs (out of 5 million taken).

We've not even gotten to the rest of the 27 million Soviet dead, or the rest of the 5.5-6 million Jews.


How about you check the numbers again of the death toll of famines caused by the british colonial regime in india again, i didn't just talk about the bengal famine.

Also i would be the last to appologise for the axis but blaming everything evil on them is cheap and objectivly wrong.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/19 22:25:15


Post by: blood reaper


Not Online!!! wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
 Elbows wrote:
I
7) Are we talking about heroic deeds and quality of the soldiers themselves, or just the end result? This really muddies the waters because - despite offending people - Germany, for instance outperformend almost every other nation in WW2 by almost any metric, but were obviously defeated.


Except in bombing, production, strategy, tactics, equipment, science, Germany did outperform its enemies in its capacity to massacre civilians with roaming death squads and make horrendous strategic mistakes.


Actually, the uk did "better" then, as in their policy in india regarding food.



Classic Axis apologism.

The Bengal Famine killed about 2.1-3 million people, a horrendous death toll - but largely the result of the Japanese seizing Burma.

Germany killed maybe 1.5 million Roma people alone. Then we've got 3 million Poles murdered in a variety of fashions. Added to that is the Hunger Plan in Ukraine (aimed at exterminating 20-30 million Soviet people,
but only ended up killing 4.2 million Soviet citizens, and around 3.3 million Soviet POWs (out of 5 million taken).

We've not even gotten to the rest of the 27 million Soviet dead, or the rest of the 5.5-6 million Jews.


How about you check the numbers again of the death toll of famines caused by the british colonial regime in india again, i didn't just talk about the bengal famine.

Also i would be the last to appologise for the axis but blaming everything evil on them is cheap and objectivly wrong.


That should be made clearer. It is undeniable that the British engaged in utterly loathsome practices in India, but we are speaking about war-time.

And the Axis were responsible for the vast majority of crimes in WW2. We haven't even gotten to the situation in China. Needless to say, sow the Wind, reap the Whirlwind.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/19 22:37:13


Post by: Not Online!!!


Not wartime? Bs excuse, war in Afghanistan f.e. corresponded directly with food shortages and that is just one exemple.

As for the vast ammount of crimes, of which Japan alone probably has done higher numbers due to the nature of the Land war in China.

"And the Axis were responsible for the vast majority of crimes in WW2. We haven't even gotten to the situation in China. Needless to say, sow the Wind, reap the Whirlwind."


Look at me, i piss at common judical tradition and implement vendetta again.....
By going to the equal level of morals or non morales you lose.

Don't claim a morale high horse, you might find someone with a hallberd to rip you down from it.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/19 22:43:13


Post by: blood reaper


Not Online!!! wrote:
Not wartime? Bs excuse, war in Afghanistan f.e. corresponded directly with food shortages and that is just one exemple.

As for the vast ammount of crimes, of which Japan alone probably has done higher numbers due to the nature of the Land war in China.

"And the Axis were responsible for the vast majority of crimes in WW2. We haven't even gotten to the situation in China. Needless to say, sow the Wind, reap the Whirlwind."


Look at me, i piss at common judical tradition and implement vendetta again.....
By going to the equal level of morals or non morales you lose.

Don't claim a morale high horse, you might find someone with a hallberd to rip you down from it.


I can easily claim a moral high ground when one looks at Unit 731 and the Warsaw Ghetto.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/19 22:57:01


Post by: Not Online!!!


 blood reaper wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Not wartime? Bs excuse, war in Afghanistan f.e. corresponded directly with food shortages and that is just one exemple.

As for the vast ammount of crimes, of which Japan alone probably has done higher numbers due to the nature of the Land war in China.

"And the Axis were responsible for the vast majority of crimes in WW2. We haven't even gotten to the situation in China. Needless to say, sow the Wind, reap the Whirlwind."


Look at me, i piss at common judical tradition and implement vendetta again.....
By going to the equal level of morals or non morales you lose.

Don't claim a morale high horse, you might find someone with a hallberd to rip you down from it.


I can easily claim a moral high ground when one looks at Unit 731 and the Warsaw Ghetto.


Phosphor bombing, planning on using milzbrand, massed bombing of civilian targets, starvation of colonies, first Implementation of concentration camps boer war, Burning down towns also in the boer war, flying the wrong flag, "London cage" nice name for a torturing institution btw, rape, implementing also unrestricted submarine warfare, blockades, etc.
Do i need to go on?

Don't get me wrong the ideology and the consequently applied form of it give especially the Nazis and the Japanese crimes a rather specific charachter but basically doing the same questionable things whilest not actually beeing part of the ideology make it atleast questionable on a standpoint that you put yourself on.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/19 23:12:28


Post by: blood reaper


Not Online!!! wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Not wartime? Bs excuse, war in Afghanistan f.e. corresponded directly with food shortages and that is just one exemple.

As for the vast ammount of crimes, of which Japan alone probably has done higher numbers due to the nature of the Land war in China.

"And the Axis were responsible for the vast majority of crimes in WW2. We haven't even gotten to the situation in China. Needless to say, sow the Wind, reap the Whirlwind."


Look at me, i piss at common judical tradition and implement vendetta again.....
By going to the equal level of morals or non morales you lose.

Don't claim a morale high horse, you might find someone with a hallberd to rip you down from it.


I can easily claim a moral high ground when one looks at Unit 731 and the Warsaw Ghetto.


Phosphor bombing, planning on using milzbrand, massed bombing of civilian targets, starvation of colonies, first Implementation of concentration camps boer war, Burning down towns also in the boer war, flying the wrong flag, "London cage" nice name for a torturing institution btw, rape, implementing also unrestricted submarine warfare, blockades, etc.
Do i need to go on?

Don't get me wrong the ideology and the consequently applied form of it give especially the Nazis and the Japanese crimes a rather specific charachter but basically doing the same questionable things whilest not actually beeing part of the ideology make it atleast questionable on a standpoint that you put yourself on.


'Planning on'

But they didn't.

'Massed bombing of civilian targets'

Universal strategy

I have no intent to deny the others - but the initial discussion was regarding WW2.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/19 23:16:45


Post by: Not Online!!!


The war is to be contextualized, in essence WW1 is the start of the whole conflict that broke the 20th century and made it to the most morally corrupt of all in human history with the exception of the 17th considering the thirty years war.

Also mass bombing was by far not as universal a tactic as you make it out to be.

Not just planning on also testing, btw that does not even include various infringements on the territory of neutral countries and blockade of trade with neutral countries.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/19 23:32:32


Post by: blood reaper


Not Online!!! wrote:
The war is to be contextualized, in essence WW1 is the start of the whole conflict that broke the 20th century and made it to the most morally corrupt of all in human history with the exception of the 17th considering the thirty years war.

Also mass bombing was by far not as universal a tactic as you make it out to be.

Not just planning on also testing, btw that does not even include various infringements on the territory of neutral countries and blockade of trade with neutral countries.


Literally every major state bar what, France? engaged in strategic bombing - Germany starting the practice.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/19 23:45:01


Post by: Not Online!!!


 blood reaper wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
The war is to be contextualized, in essence WW1 is the start of the whole conflict that broke the 20th century and made it to the most morally corrupt of all in human history with the exception of the 17th considering the thirty years war.

Also mass bombing was by far not as universal a tactic as you make it out to be.

Not just planning on also testing, btw that does not even include various infringements on the territory of neutral countries and blockade of trade with neutral countries.


Literally every major state bar what, France? engaged in strategic bombing - Germany starting the practice.


UdSSR also not and China, but that later one has more to do with the lack of industry.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 00:15:20


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


The difference between the Bengal famine and the Nazis planned famine in Ukraine is that one was entirely on purpose and the other was caused, in part, by incompetence and the loss of food imports from Burma following the Japanese invasion. It's not like the British WANTED people to starve to death, unlike the Nazis. Incompetence is not malice. There's a colossal difference between the two.

There simply is no Allied equivalent of Auschwitz or Nanjing. The treatment of Japanese women on Okinawa after the war was horrible, Dresden was wholly indefensible, and so was a bunch of other examples we could drag up, but they pale in comparison to Mengele and Unit 731.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 09:10:59


Post by: queen_annes_revenge


Chill guys. there's no reason debate cant be civil. even debate thats gone a little off topic... I think its fair to say that in conflict situations throughout history, people have done awful things. I'm under no illusions about the British empire. One could argue that it was just the way of things back then, without trying to be dismissive of course.

I personally believe the difference between those specific circumstances in the early 20th century, those of the Nazis and the various Japanese specialist units like 731, was the fact that those were officially sanctioned by governments. There's a difference between opportunistic war crimes, and military units created with government permission to perform unspeakable acts of barbaric torture and 'experiments' on civillians.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 09:31:10


Post by: Not Online!!!


 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Chill guys. there's no reason debate cant be civil. even debate thats gone a little off topic... I think its fair to say that in conflict situations throughout history, people have done awful things. I'm under no illusions about the British empire. One could argue that it was just the way of things back then, without trying to be dismissive of course.

I personally believe the difference between those specific circumstances in the early 20th century, those of the Nazis and the various Japanese specialist units like 731, was the fact that those were officially sanctioned by governments. There's a difference between opportunistic war crimes, and military units created with government permission to perform unspeakable acts of barbaric torture and 'experiments' on civillians.


I reread my coments and you can indeed interpret them as cross, that said, this was not my intention, my point was more to basically state don't claim a morale high horse else you might get pulled down from it and found gulty inadvertadly of hypocrisy.

Whilest the Crimes due to ideological reasons indeed show a quality due to the very bureaucratic nature only Size alone is diffrent.
Especially the "london cage" puts a dent in your defense, because there was even zilch reason to even do something like that for your government and it was even condoned from higher ups.

What personally does shock me more on the Nazi crimes (or the japanese ones) was the seamless integration of the state aparatus with its formerly prussian/ authoritharian style officials, basically the authoritharian structure does just adapt to the ideology in charge, which shows a very eerily disgusting nature of a state apparatus and it's cogs so to speak. Considering that for the scale these powers willingly enforced their ideologies they needed the complete coordniation with the officals it goes to show how fast these got indoctrinated.




Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 10:56:32


Post by: queen_annes_revenge


the london cage is not really comparable though, as that was for theinterrogation of SS personnel. the debate on the intricacies of torture in a military intelligence environment aside, its a different beast to the 'medical' experiments performed by 731 or the extermination camps of the Nazis.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 11:05:48


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


That comparison is bogus. Was the London cage business a war crime? Yes, almost certainly. Was it even remotely in the same ballpark as Auschwitz?

I have absolutely no issue with the Allies claiming the moral high ground. It's completely possible to do awful things and still be far, far better than the opposition. That does not make the Allied atrocities OK, but Jesus man, get some perspective. There just are no Allied extermination camps, no rape contests reported in national newspapers and no friendly rivalry between American officers to see who could decapitate 100 Japanese civilians the fastest. It's absolutely not just a difference in degree.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 11:08:54


Post by: Not Online!!!


 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
the london cage is not really comparable though, as that was for theinterrogation of SS personnel. the debate on the intricacies of torture in a military intelligence environment aside, its a different beast to the 'medical' experiments performed by 731 or the extermination camps of the Nazis.


Not true, from police to Gestapo, to marine officers all went in there. Even nkvd personell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That comparison is bogus. Was the London cage business a war crime? Yes, almost certainly. Was it even remotely in the same ballpark as Auschwitz?

I have absolutely no issue with the Allies claiming the moral high ground. It's completely possible to do awful things and still be far, far better than the opposition. That does not make the Allied atrocities OK, but Jesus man, get some perspective. There just are no Allied extermination camps, no rape contests reported in national newspapers and no friendly rivalry between American officers to see who could decapitate 100 Japanese civilians the fastest. It's absolutely not just a difference in degree.


I once again will point at the boer war.
Enough said.

The only real difference was the ammount which by far is outweighed by nazi germany and Japan, aswell as the UdSSR.

Also unlike in Japan and nazi germany alot of the British personell there got Flak for their behaviour.

But it still is questionable to run in essence a Gestapo prison as a democracy.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 11:40:28


Post by: queen_annes_revenge


Not Online!!! wrote:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
the london cage is not really comparable though, as that was for theinterrogation of SS personnel. the debate on the intricacies of torture in a military intelligence environment aside, its a different beast to the 'medical' experiments performed by 731 or the extermination camps of the Nazis.


Not true, from police to Gestapo, to marine officers all went in there. Even nkvd personell.



Splitting hairs. Its still a military intelligence thing, Not camps for civillians.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 11:51:59


Post by: Not Online!!!


 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
the london cage is not really comparable though, as that was for theinterrogation of SS personnel. the debate on the intricacies of torture in a military intelligence environment aside, its a different beast to the 'medical' experiments performed by 731 or the extermination camps of the Nazis.


Not true, from police to Gestapo, to marine officers all went in there. Even nkvd personell.



Splitting hairs. Its still a military intelligence thing, Not camps for civillians.


Boer war, also the leader of it was allready active during WW1.

Pow also have rights btw. And imprisoning allied personell is a great move really.

Btw police is not civilian now?



Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 12:04:11


Post by: Orlanth


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The difference between the Bengal famine and the Nazis planned famine in Ukraine is that one was entirely on purpose and the other was caused, in part, by incompetence and the loss of food imports from Burma following the Japanese invasion. It's not like the British WANTED people to starve to death, unlike the Nazis. Incompetence is not malice. There's a colossal difference between the two.

There simply is no Allied equivalent of Auschwitz or Nanjing. The treatment of Japanese women on Okinawa after the war was horrible, Dresden was wholly indefensible, and so was a bunch of other examples we could drag up, but they pale in comparison to Mengele and Unit 731.


The Dresden bombing raid was a case of a normal bombing raid that went horribly right. The war was still ongoing, Dresden was a tertiary production center overlooked up until then because other cities had greater production. Thus the city was largely unbombed and had intact wooden roofs. The RAF by then had a lot of experience of night bombing, cloud and wind conditions were optimal and as a result the firestorm was exceptionally effective. There was no difference between the Dresden raid or those on Hamburg or Berlin or the bombing campaigns going back to the Spanish Civil War.
As Harris quoted from Isaiah "They sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind". Nothing had changed in how the air war was conducted.

You could critique the entire bombing campaign, but the reply to that is simply this: if German cities didn't want to be bombed, or trampled by Soviets they should have done their duty to the human race and stormed the Reichstag and removed the Nazis in chains.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 12:06:17


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


The Allies wasn't a thing during the Boer war. A lot of things changed between 1902 and 1939; Britain didn't have death camps, Germany did. While Britain would later do some rather horrifying things (cf. the Mau-Mau uprising) they just didn't systematically chop off people's arms and reattach them on the wrong side or give prisoners infusions of cat blood just to see what would happen. British imperialism was callous; Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were outright malicious. The Germans even consciously chose to call their camps "concentration camps" so that they could deflect criticism by pointing at the Boer war, but the British didn't set up crematoriums or gas chambers.

There is a whole world of difference between Boer prisoners dying from malnutrition and bad sanitation and the Germans gassing people; one is the result of the British not caring what happened to the Boer as long as they could end the war, the other is the Nazis fighting the war so they could put people in the camps and kill them. We differentiate between similar crimes through the presence or absence of intent all the time: murder is worse than manslaughter. Hence, active extermination is worse than indirect killing through neglect, even ignoring the almost four decades separating the Boer war and WW2.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 12:10:31


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Orlanth wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The difference between the Bengal famine and the Nazis planned famine in Ukraine is that one was entirely on purpose and the other was caused, in part, by incompetence and the loss of food imports from Burma following the Japanese invasion. It's not like the British WANTED people to starve to death, unlike the Nazis. Incompetence is not malice. There's a colossal difference between the two.

There simply is no Allied equivalent of Auschwitz or Nanjing. The treatment of Japanese women on Okinawa after the war was horrible, Dresden was wholly indefensible, and so was a bunch of other examples we could drag up, but they pale in comparison to Mengele and Unit 731.


The Dresden bombing raid was a case of a normal bombing raid that went horribly right. The war was still ongoing, Dresden was a tertiary production center overlooked up until then because other cities had greater production. Thus the city was largely unbombed and had intact wooden roofs. The RAF by then had a lot of experience of night bombing, cloud and wind conditions were optimal and as a result the firestorm was exceptionally effective. There was no difference between the Dresden raid or those on Hamburg or Berlin or the bombing campaigns going back to the Spanish Civil War.
As Harris quoted from Isaiah "They sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind". Nothing had changed in how the air war was conducted.

You could critique the entire bombing campaign, but the reply to that is simply this: if German cities didn't want to be bombed, or trampled by Soviets they should have done their duty to the human race and stormed the Reichstag and removed the Nazis in chains.


That is the correct argument, however the state apparatus folded over to the nazis as soon as they came to power and with the state apparatus you have basically all you need to enforce your will on the people.

You want to know one of the biggest ironies, some of the most diehard SS members were people that had stuedied philosophy, history , germanistik (german language), law,etc. in many ways for them one of the reasons to join this is to thin out competition in their field of expertise.
F.e. Carl Schmitt is one such a career philosopher/ jurist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The Allies wasn't a thing during the Boer war. A lot of things changed between 1902 and 1939; Britain didn't have death camps, Germany did. While Britain would later do some rather horrifying things (cf. the Mau-Mau uprising) they just didn't systematically chop off people's arms and reattach them on the wrong side or give prisoners infusions of cat blood just to see what would happen. British imperialism was callous; Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were outright malicious. The Germans even consciously chose to call their camps "concentration camps" so that they could deflect criticism by pointing at the Boer war, but the British didn't set up crematoriums or gas chambers.

There is a whole world of difference between Boer prisoners dying from malnutrition and bad sanitation and the Germans gassing people; one is the result of the British not caring what happened to the Boer as long as they could end the war, the other is the Nazis fighting the war so they could put people in the camps and kill them. We differentiate between similar crimes through the presence or absence of intent all the time: murder is worse than manslaughter. Hence, active extermination is worse than indirect killing through neglect, even ignoring the almost four decades separating the Boer war and WW2.


120'000 farmers interned in the boer war, 26'000 dead.
Intent is the right word, however there is also rationale.
To say the killing was without intent in the boer war is wrong, the intent was to break the spirit of the guerrila. It was succsessfull but also shows the intent.

No doubt the continued 'hullabaloo' at the death-rate in these concentration camps, and Milner's belated agreement to take over their administration, helped change Kitchener's mind [some time at the end of 1901]. ... By mid-December at any rate, Kitchener was already circulating all column commanders with instructions not to bring in women and children when they cleared the country, but to leave them with the guerrillas. ... Viewed as a gesture to Liberals, on the eve of the new session of Parliament at Westminster, it was a shrewd political move. It also made excellent military sense, as it greatly handicapped the guerrillas, now that the drives were in full swing. ... It was effective precisely because, contrary to the Liberals' convictions, it was less humane than bringing them into camps, though this was of no great concern to Kitchener.
See pakenham Thomas: pp. 461–572.

Now we come to the motive and this is were i aree with you:
Extermination vs an Enemy that fights assymetrical.
One is a dirty tactic, as is irregular warfare, and questionable, the other is inexcusable by any metric, and this is what makes the quality of the Crimes of Nazi Germany and Japan stand out.

Additionally:
from the boer war to WW1 is a time spawn of 12 years and was mostly fought in the 20th century.
WW2 is in essence only to be regarded as WW1, 5 in many ways.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 13:01:07


Post by: creeping-deth87


 blood reaper wrote:
 Elbows wrote:
I
7) Are we talking about heroic deeds and quality of the soldiers themselves, or just the end result? This really muddies the waters because - despite offending people - Germany, for instance outperformend almost every other nation in WW2 by almost any metric, but were obviously defeated.


Except in bombing, production, strategy, tactics, equipment, science, Germany did outperform its enemies in its capacity to massacre civilians with roaming death squads and make horrendous strategic mistakes.


I'll give you bombing, production, strategy (up to a point), and science, but tactics and equipment? Come on. The Wehrmacht were prolific pioneers. First to use independent armoured divisions, first to use radios and intercoms in their tanks, first to use communication between pilots and soldiers on the ground, developed arguably the best machinegun of the war, developed the world's first assault rifle, first to successfully use paratroopers, and most importantly first to use the combined arms warfare that dominated battlefields for decades afterward.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Axis apologist. Germany didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the war, but I'm a firm believer in giving credit where credit is due and the Wehrmacht were exceedingly proficient.

 blood reaper wrote:


I provided a semblance of a counter argument to your old fashioned axis propaganda. But we can go into detail,

> German defeated largely weakling powers and sick men in 1939 and 1940. It outnumbered the Allies at France and was fighting a country riddled by political chaos


Weakling powers? The French had the largest, best armed and best supplied army in the world. Sick men? Citation definitely needed. Outnumbered the Allies? No, not even close. The French Army had more divisions in the field, more aircraft, more tanks, more everything. Outmoded thinking, incompetence, and the sheer audacity of Manstein's plan were what won the day for the Germans.

> Germany was not alone in the war and was heavily reliant on its allies (it could have never fought in the Soviet Union without Romanian oil, for instance)


Ehhhh, bit of a stretch to say heavily reliant. They absolutely needed Romanian oil, but the fighting quality of their allies' troops left a lot to be desired. There's a reason people don't sing the praises of the Romanian, Hungarian, and Bulgarian armies in the Second World War.

> Germany's greatest victories were against a recently industrialised and chaotic state that, once reorganised, smashed the Germans


So what? History is full of conquerors invading nations that weren't prepared for it. Do you slag Caesar for invading Gaul and Briton?

> Germany regularly suffered higher casualties than its enemies in the field on the Western Front


There's a very good reason for this. The Western Front is dormant from 1940 to 1944, by which time the Allies had ramped up into overdrive and were asserting their aerial superiority everywhere at a time when the Germans had already been bled dry by the Soviets. Most of the German divisions in France were subpar, second-line formations. The best fighting men were in the East, where the Germans consistently inflicted higher casualties on the Red Army even into 1945.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 13:07:27


Post by: Not Online!!!


What mg are you talking about?
The 34 one or the 42?


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 13:28:52


Post by: queen_annes_revenge


The Germans did have decent kit. They also had some people who knew how best to utilise it. they were just hamstrung by ineptitude at the very top, especially when Hitler started directing military strategy personally.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 13:34:03


Post by: Not Online!!!


 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
The Germans did have decent kit. They also had some people who knew how best to utilise it. they were just hamstrung by ineptitude at the very top, especially when Hitler started directing military strategy personally.


The whole german warmachine was terrible planned and executed.
Total mobilisation of female workers never really happened until late war f.e.
Obsession with giant but ultimately useless ressource dumps like King tiger or even the panther (both were heavily overweight for their suspension).
Projects like the Atlantik wall were completly wrong built when they were not under military command, hence why Rommel literally forced his men to add in additional work hours.
Projects like the Channel islands, which again were ressource dumps which could've been used for other , more important projects.





Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 13:49:30


Post by: Troy


Lets put a small shout out to Vietnam. They turned paradise into a deathtrap for the Mongols, French, Japanese, and US.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 14:03:29


Post by: creeping-deth87


Not Online!!! wrote:

The whole german warmachine was terrible planned and executed.
Total mobilisation of female workers never really happened until late war f.e.
Obsession with giant but ultimately useless ressource dumps like King tiger or even the panther (both were heavily overweight for their suspension).
Projects like the Atlantik wall were completly wrong built when they were not under military command, hence why Rommel literally forced his men to add in additional work hours.
Projects like the Channel islands, which again were ressource dumps which could've been used for other , more important projects.


Virtually all of these, like with so many other blunders, were Hitler's doing. The Panther had a very reasonable weight for its suspension when she was being designed, but Hitler insisted on the L70 cannon and all the additional armour that got thrown onto the front of the vehicle. It was these modifications that gave the Panther its notorious maintenance problems. Granted, it was a very formidable machine that could knock out any tank on the Allied side with ease, and could withstand a great deal of punishment from the front, but its reliability was always a problem even after they refined the design with later marks.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 14:21:13


Post by: blood reaper


Spoiler:
 creeping-deth87 wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
 Elbows wrote:
I
7) Are we talking about heroic deeds and quality of the soldiers themselves, or just the end result? This really muddies the waters because - despite offending people - Germany, for instance outperformend almost every other nation in WW2 by almost any metric, but were obviously defeated.


Except in bombing, production, strategy, tactics, equipment, science, Germany did outperform its enemies in its capacity to massacre civilians with roaming death squads and make horrendous strategic mistakes.


I'll give you bombing, production, strategy (up to a point), and science, but tactics and equipment? Come on. The Wehrmacht were prolific pioneers. First to use independent armoured divisions, first to use radios and intercoms in their tanks, first to use communication between pilots and soldiers on the ground, developed arguably the best machinegun of the war, developed the world's first assault rifle, first to successfully use paratroopers, and most importantly first to use the combined arms warfare that dominated battlefields for decades afterward.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Axis apologist. Germany didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the war, but I'm a firm believer in giving credit where credit is due and the Wehrmacht were exceedingly proficient.

 blood reaper wrote:


I provided a semblance of a counter argument to your old fashioned axis propaganda. But we can go into detail,

> German defeated largely weakling powers and sick men in 1939 and 1940. It outnumbered the Allies at France and was fighting a country riddled by political chaos


Weakling powers? The French had the largest, best armed and best supplied army in the world. Sick men? Citation definitely needed. Outnumbered the Allies? No, not even close. The French Army had more divisions in the field, more aircraft, more tanks, more everything. Outmoded thinking, incompetence, and the sheer audacity of Manstein's plan were what won the day for the Germans.

> Germany was not alone in the war and was heavily reliant on its allies (it could have never fought in the Soviet Union without Romanian oil, for instance)


Ehhhh, bit of a stretch to say heavily reliant. They absolutely needed Romanian oil, but the fighting quality of their allies' troops left a lot to be desired. There's a reason people don't sing the praises of the Romanian, Hungarian, and Bulgarian armies in the Second World War.

> Germany's greatest victories were against a recently industrialised and chaotic state that, once reorganised, smashed the Germans


So what? History is full of conquerors invading nations that weren't prepared for it. Do you slag Caesar for invading Gaul and Briton?

> Germany regularly suffered higher casualties than its enemies in the field on the Western Front


There's a very good reason for this. The Western Front is dormant from 1940 to 1944, by which time the Allies had ramped up into overdrive and were asserting their aerial superiority everywhere at a time when the Germans had already been bled dry by the Soviets. Most of the German divisions in France were subpar, second-line formations. The best fighting men were in the East, where the Germans consistently inflicted higher casualties on the Red Army even into 1945.


Going to have to use direct quotes now because I deplore the quote system this site uses,

> "The Wehrmacht were prolific pioneers. First to use independent armoured divisions, first to use radios and intercoms in their tanks, first to use communication between pilots and soldiers on the ground, developed arguably the best machinegun of the war, developed the world's first assault rifle, first to successfully use paratroopers, and most importantly first to use the combined arms warfare that dominated battlefields for decades afterward."

Germany were less pioneers and more so excellent at forcing through prototypes into the field and hoping they'd work (see almost every Germany heavy tank).

> "First to use independent armoured divisions"

Certainly true - but they weren't tremendously effective compared to those used by their enemies and often were severely understaffed and under-equipped

> "First to use radios and intercoms"

These were present amongst every nation, it's just the case that many did not have enough radios - for example, the Soviets

> "First to use communications for their pilots and soldiers on the ground"

I'd need a source on that

> "Best Machine gun of the war"

The MG34 was pretty good but the MG42 is grossly overrated.A high rate of fire does necesarily mean it is good - especially when it burns through ammo so fast (a luxury Germany did not have, mind you).

> "developed the world's first assault rifle"

Not entirely true. The concept of the assault rifle had been bounced around amongst European nations - the Germans were the first to deploy it, but far too much credit goes to the Germans for the concept.

> "first to successfully use paratroopers"

To use them, but the concept came well before Germany - the Soviets actually inspired the German use of mass paratrooper formations

> "and most importantly first to use the combined arms warfare that dominated battlefields for decades afterward"

Not really, 'dominate the battlefield' reads like such a History Channel sentiment - especially considering that the British, Americans and Soviets largely continued using their own (superior doctrines) in favour of Germany strategies.

> "Weakling powers? The French had the largest, best armed and best supplied army in the world. Sick men? Citation definitely needed. Outnumbered the Allies? No, not even close. The French Army had more divisions in the field, more aircraft, more tanks, more everything. Outmoded thinking, incompetence, and the sheer audacity of Manstein's plan were what won the day for the Germans."

Germany had a larger army of around 3,350,000 troops (not including Italian forces at the Alps) - compared to the combined Allied forces of 3,300,000 troops.

> "best armed and supplied"

Not really. French equipment was not tremendously good nor suited for the kind of warfare they were facing (considering much of it was aimed at trench warfare).

I can't lie though, France, with a bit more clever thinking, could have humiliated the Germans in 1940. What a world that would be - millions of krauts utterly annihilated - Marshal Foch's dream.

> "Ehhhh, bit of a stretch to say heavily reliant. They absolutely needed Romanian oil, but the fighting quality of their allies' troops left a lot to be desired. There's a reason people don't sing the praises of the Romanian, Hungarian, and Bulgarian armies in the Second World War."

Without their allies Germany could not have pushed into the Soviet Union and occupied territory. Far from excellent fighters but necessary considering the scale of the conflict. Romania switching sides for example ended the war by several months.

> "So what? History is full of conquerors invading nations that weren't prepared for it. Do you slag Caesar for invading Gaul and Briton?"

No I'd slag the people who spouted historical myths such as the German underdog story.

> "There's a very good reason for this. The Western Front is dormant from 1940 to 1944, by which time the Allies had ramped up into overdrive and were asserting their aerial superiority everywhere at a time when the Germans had already been bled dry by the Soviets. Most of the German divisions in France were subpar, second-line formations."

This is somewhat mythological. There were a number of 'premium' (though I hate to call any German units 'premium' at anything bar mass murder, racism and slaughter) units stationed in the West (paratroopers, tank divisions, etc.) - though it's true there were subpar units, with the proper command they could've been put to infinitely better use.

> "consistently inflicted higher casualties"

Which is not a surprise. A defender should, in most situations, be able to inflict 3 times the casualties they take upon the enemy. Germany had spent quite some time building defences to face a vengeful Red Army.

And on the subject of Dresden, while another user has posted the quote, the full thing is quite something,



SOW THE WIND - REAP THE WHILLRWIND


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 14:45:00


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


That's a badass quote when delivered against a foe that can fight back. It's slightly less badass when used as a justification after punching someone who's already down. War crimes do not stop being war crimes just because the other side had it coming.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 14:48:46


Post by: Not Online!!!


So you also condone RAF violations of neutral airspace?

Should we now also bomb dover f.e.?
All in all it surely seems logical to do so after Shafhausen, Zürich,etc. right?

I mean:
"SOW THE WIND - REAP THE WHILLRWIND" seems in your mind perfectly acceptable right?



Edit: of the two Mg34 and 42 the 42 was the better one because it was easier to manufacture unlike the 34. However due to the bad barrell change mechanic it was not capable for beein hull miunted or coaxial.

Additonially "Bomber" Harris violated the 1909 air convention. Sure, a great man indeed,.....


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 15:07:54


Post by: blood reaper


It is acceptable. As Harris said, he would've done it again.

Bomber 'Great British Bake Off' Harris did nothing wrong. The Germans had, as he said, bombed in a dozen places and thus brought the reprise upon themselves.

Even then, Dresden was a vital military hub. Germany might've been losing, but she was not yet defeated. There could not be another 1918, where Germany escaped its punishment.

"However Harris stood his ground saying: 'The bombers kept over a million fit Germans out of the German army… Manning the anti-aircraft defences; making the ammunition, and doing urgent repairs, especially tradesmen.'"

Dresden has now become nothing more than a calling card for Nazi apologists, pushed forward by types like David Irving claiming the innocence of Germany. Might I say, Germany is lucky to have remained in existence after the 1st, let alone 2nd World War.



Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 15:11:08


Post by: Not Online!!!


It is acceptable.


Ok airspace of neutral countries is ok to be violated, cause feth em.

Harris did nothing wrong. The Germans had, as he said, bombed in a dozen places and thus brought the reprise upon themselves.

Even then, Dresden was a vital military hub. Germany might've been losing, but she was not yet defeated. There could not be another 1918, where Germany escaped its punishment.


Harris bombed Switzerland, routed planes through switzerland and comitted mass bombings. Breaking international conventions of 1909 . SURE mate SURE.

Also 1918 unpunished?
Have you read the versaille treaty?
Or are you just germanophobic?

Dresden has now become nothing more than a calling card for Nazi apologists, pushed forward by types like David Irving claiming the innocence of Germany. Might I say, Germany is lucky to have remained in existence after the 1st, let alone 2nd World War.

Are we now even ignoring the self determination right of nations?


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 15:14:20


Post by: blood reaper


I don't really care much for airspace violations when the fate of Europe is at stake. I don't believe anyone was tried at Nuremburg for airspace violations (nor mass bombings, for that matter).

'Harris bombed Switzerland'

Without the intention of doing so, true. I'm glad this wasn't mentioned.

Versailles was nothing compared to what the Germans had inflicted upon France in 1870 - which included stealing gold from the French reserves. The Germans lost territory which was usually largely not German - and ultimately Germany's imperialistic, expansionist ambitions had not been destroyed. Without a proper occupation, Germany could not recognise that it had been truly military defeated.

"Are we now even ignoring the self determination right of nations?"

Germany had ignored the self determination of every nation in Europe and seemed intent to do so again without being properly reigned in.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 15:23:55


Post by: creeping-deth87



Germany were less pioneers and more so excellent at forcing through prototypes into the field and hoping they'd work (see almost every Germany heavy tank).


Literally every belligerent nation in the war did this.

> "First to use independent armoured divisions"
Certainly true - but they weren't tremendously effective compared to those used by their enemies and often were severely understaffed and under-equipped


Weren't tremendously effective? The armoured divisions were the biggest reason the French Army was toppled in 1940. They're what trapped the Allied armies in the north, cutting them off from supply and reinforcement. Without this, it's very likely that the Wehrmacht would have settled into exactly the kind of static slugging match that the Germans had to endure in WW1.

> "First to use radios and intercoms"
These were present amongst every nation, it's just the case that many did not have enough radios - for example, the Soviets


Don't see how this is relevant. They were still the first to use radios and intercoms in their tanks. No one else did it before them.

> "First to use communications for their pilots and soldiers on the ground"
I'd need a source on that


This is a mis-quote. I said BETWEEN pilots and soldiers on the ground. The Stuka was built from the ground up to supplement the army, and it did this very well.

> "Best Machine gun of the war"
The MG34 was pretty good but the MG42 is grossly overrated.A high rate of fire does necesarily mean it is good - especially when it burns through ammo so fast (a luxury Germany did not have, mind you).


Name a better machinegun from the war. The MG42 was head and shoulders above the BAR, Browning .30, DSHK, Bren, etc.

> "developed the world's first assault rifle"

Not entirely true. The concept of the assault rifle had been bounced around amongst European nations - the Germans were the first to deploy it, but far too much credit goes to the Germans for the concept.


Again, not sure how this is relevant. They were the first to issue an assault rifle en masse to the infantry. No one else did it before them.

> "first to successfully use paratroopers"

To use them, but the concept came well before Germany - the Soviets actually inspired the German use of mass paratrooper formations


The Soviets were hilariously backwards when it came to paratroopers. Soviet paratroopers were trained to walk out onto the wings of the plane while it was flying and then jump off while the aircraft was at low speed and low altitude. The point stands that the Germans were the first to use them successfully. No one else did it before them.

> "and most importantly first to use the combined arms warfare that dominated battlefields for decades afterward"

Not really, 'dominate the battlefield' reads like such a History Channel sentiment - especially considering that the British, Americans and Soviets largely continued using their own (superior doctrines) in favour of Germany strategies.


Every one of those nations after the war adopted combined arms in some form or another and continued to use it in for decades afterward. The Germans were the first to do it, no one else did it before them.


Germany had a larger army of around 3,350,000 troops (not including Italian forces at the Alps) - compared to the combined Allied forces of 3,300,000 troops.


The fact that you're including Italians here makes me very skeptical about how much you know about the invasion of France. The Italians did not declare war until a few weeks after the German invasion began. The French alone had some 135 divisions to the roughly 100 German divisions that actually invaded, and this is not including the BEF. Remember that at this point they already had to garrison Norway, Denmark, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. The entirety of the Heer was not in France.

Not really. French equipment was not tremendously good nor suited for the kind of warfare they were facing (considering much of it was aimed at trench warfare).


Oh boy... this is patently untrue. The French equipment was excellent. The French tanks were actually better machines than what the Panzerwaffe had to work with, and the French aircraft were absolutely up to the task of contesting the skies, but again doctrinal errors and poor organization by the French high command pretty much nullified these advantages.

I can't lie though, France, with a bit more clever thinking, could have humiliated the Germans in 1940. What a world that would be - millions of krauts utterly annihilated - Marshal Foch's dream.


On this at least we agree.


Without their allies Germany could not have pushed into the Soviet Union and occupied territory. Far from excellent fighters but necessary considering the scale of the conflict. Romania switching sides for example ended the war by several months.


Only insofar as they needed the oil. The Heer did virtually all of the heavy lifting. Germany's allies did not acquit themselves very well in Russia.


No I'd slag the people who spouted historical myths such as the German underdog story.


This is not an answer to my challenge. You used Russia's state of turmoil to insinuate that the Heer's campaign against the Red Army wasn't impressive, but by this metric very few campaigns in history could be considered impressive. War is not only fought between equally prepared nation states.


This is somewhat mythological. There were a number of 'premium' (though I hate to call any German units 'premium' at anything bar mass murder, racism and slaughter) units stationed in the West (paratroopers, tank divisions, etc.) - though it's true there were subpar units, with the proper command they could've been put to infinitely better use.


Yes, there were a number of 'premium' units - 6th SS Panzer, among other divisions, was transferred away from the Eastern Front to France to deal with the impending Allied division, but such units were a tiny proportion of the fighting strength in that theatre. The vast bulk of the Heer in France were under-equipped and not fit for anything but garrison duty.

> "consistently inflicted higher casualties"

Which is not a surprise. A defender should, in most situations, be able to inflict 3 times the casualties they take upon the enemy. Germany had spent quite some time building defences to face a vengeful Red Army.


You were the one who used casualty rates to illustrate the efficacy of the armies in question. You cherry picked a theatre where the Germans woefully got their asses handed to them, but this was not the case everywhere. In fact, in most theaters in which the Germans were engaged, they repeatedly inflicted greater losses than their adversaries.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 15:29:43


Post by: Not Online!!!


 blood reaper wrote:
I don't really care much for airspace violations when the fate of Europe is at stake. I don't believe anyone was tried at Nuremburg for airspace violations (nor mass bombings, for that matter).

'Harris bombed Switzerland'

Without the intention of doing so, true. I'm glad this wasn't mentioned.

Versailles was nothing compared to what the Germans had inflicted upon France in 1870 - which included stealing gold from the French reserves. The Germans lost territory which was usually largely not German - and ultimately Germany's imperialistic, expansionist ambitions had not been destroyed. Without a proper occupation, Germany could not recognise that it had been truly military defeated.

"Are we now even ignoring the self determination right of nations?"

Germany had ignored the self determination of every nation in Europe and seemed intent to do so again without being properly reigned in.


He did so with intent, as did the USAAF. Thank you very much.The intent was also aired and mentioned as threat torwards swiss officals.


> And here you actully feth up badly "Germany had ignored the self determination of every nation in Europe and seemed intent to do so again without being properly reigned in"

Also again: "because they did so what we did so is perfectly acceptable" is not correct, or justifiable by any legal standard.

If you ever had a look a Ethnic maps you would realise due to the whole Empires thingy that middle to eastern Europe is not Ethnically homogenous. It got alot more homogenisised after WW2 and after the Yugoslav breakup but those incidents also show huge tendencies of violence.
Additionally and as an exemple you can also look at the exchange between Greeks and Turks in the regions after the turkish war for independence.




Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 15:34:29


Post by: blood reaper


Germany did so to a much, much greater extent (see a majority of German heavy tanks).

I can largely agree with the points on the French - bar the equipment thing (yes, French tanks were heavily armoured but the turret ergonomics were atrocious).

Firstly on the German division thing, I don't see why this matters. Divisions are not necessarily the same size as one another - Germany still had more man power than France and Britain (I *did not* include the Italians as part of the total man power, in case it appeared that I had). Germany was not outnumbered at France.

Beevor in Stalingrad notes a number of times that without their allies the Germans would've struggled to get anywhere - in fact without the 'Hiwis' (Russian traitors) the Germans would've found their manpower situation even more atrocious than they did later in the war.

I use it to implicate that the war was a little more than 'German ubermensch beat down dumb Soviet subhumans' - a commonly spouted theme in many video games and online forums. I am explaining my position, and answering your challenge - no I would not slog them but I would slog silly positions taken regarding them which reduce history to some sort of propagandistic meme.

Understrength and lacking in equipment, maybe, but the idea the German army was completely spent and unable to do more than garrison duty seems a little far (though it's certainly true of the actual garrison divisions, who usually surrendered as quickly as possible).

I used casualty rates to push against the typical myth of German 'K/D' ratios (don't get me started on how the Germans cheated regarding AFV kills). And I would happily debate the myth of German superiority on the Eastern Front in regard to kills (which is much more equal when the conflict as a whole is taken into view).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
I don't really care much for airspace violations when the fate of Europe is at stake. I don't believe anyone was tried at Nuremburg for airspace violations (nor mass bombings, for that matter).

'Harris bombed Switzerland'

Without the intention of doing so, true. I'm glad this wasn't mentioned.

Versailles was nothing compared to what the Germans had inflicted upon France in 1870 - which included stealing gold from the French reserves. The Germans lost territory which was usually largely not German - and ultimately Germany's imperialistic, expansionist ambitions had not been destroyed. Without a proper occupation, Germany could not recognise that it had been truly military defeated.

"Are we now even ignoring the self determination right of nations?"

Germany had ignored the self determination of every nation in Europe and seemed intent to do so again without being properly reigned in.


He did so with intent, as did the USAAF. Thank you very much.The intent was also aired and mentioned as threat torwards swiss officals.


> And here you actully feth up badly "Germany had ignored the self determination of every nation in Europe and seemed intent to do so again without being properly reigned in"

Also again: "because they did so what we did so is perfectly acceptable" is not correct, or justifiable by any legal standard.

If you ever had a look a Ethnic maps you would realise due to the whole Empires thingy that middle to eastern Europe is not Ethnically homogenous. It got alot more homogenisised after WW2 and after the Yugoslav breakup but those incidents also show huge tendencies of violence.
Additionally and as an exemple you can also look at the exchange between Greeks and Turks in the regions after the turkish war for independence.



Well there had to be some punishment. Germany is still in existence, which is much more than one can say for what Germany had planned for Poland, or the Low Countries, or the former Soviet Union.

Had the Germans not been removed from Eastern Europe by the Allied powers the local populations would've done it themselves. They had acted as 5th columnists, and as such faced a fairly understandable fate.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 15:40:07


Post by: Not Online!!!


Well there had to be some punishment. Germany is still in existence, which is much more than one can say for what Germany had planned for Poland, or the Low Countries, or the former Soviet Union.

Had the Germans not been removed from Eastern Europe by the Allied powers the local populations would've done it themselves. They had acted as 5th columnists, and as such faced a fairly understandable fate.

I agree with that sentiment, does however not justify equal questionable behaviour letting go unpunished.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
They had acted as 5th columnists, and as such faced a fairly understandable fate.


i'd like to know of such incidents.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 15:47:03


Post by: blood reaper


Not Online!!! wrote:
Well there had to be some punishment. Germany is still in existence, which is much more than one can say for what Germany had planned for Poland, or the Low Countries, or the former Soviet Union.

Had the Germans not been removed from Eastern Europe by the Allied powers the local populations would've done it themselves. They had acted as 5th columnists, and as such faced a fairly understandable fate.

I agree with that sentiment, does however not justify equal questionable behaviour letting go unpunished.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
They had acted as 5th columnists, and as such faced a fairly understandable fate.


i'd like to know of such incidents.




Sudeten Germans waged a 'partisan war' against the Czechoslovak population and regularly executed police officers and civilians. When the occupation came they gleefully became part of the occupying government and continued to cause problems for the Czech population (some of these claims come directly from the Diaries of Goebbels). At the end of the war, the Czech population would've likely exterminated them given the chance - and I must say understandably so considering the utter horrors the Germans inflicted upon them.

In Poland German militias formed in 'Danzig' where they executed and tortured to death Polish POWs. Volksdeutsche across Poland regularly engaged in ethic cleansing of their former neighbours and were recruited into Waffen SS divisions. Similar events occurred in Yugoslavia, where the German backed local militias engaged in similar behaviour.



Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 16:11:40


Post by: Not Online!!!


 blood reaper wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Well there had to be some punishment. Germany is still in existence, which is much more than one can say for what Germany had planned for Poland, or the Low Countries, or the former Soviet Union.

Had the Germans not been removed from Eastern Europe by the Allied powers the local populations would've done it themselves. They had acted as 5th columnists, and as such faced a fairly understandable fate.

I agree with that sentiment, does however not justify equal questionable behaviour letting go unpunished.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
They had acted as 5th columnists, and as such faced a fairly understandable fate.


i'd like to know of such incidents.




Sudeten Germans waged a 'partisan war' against the Czechoslovak population and regularly executed police officers and civilians. When the occupation came they gleefully became part of the occupying government and continued to cause problems for the Czech population (some of these claims come directly from the Diaries of Goebbels). At the end of the war, the Czech population would've likely exterminated them given the chance - and I must say understandably so considering the utter horrors the Germans inflicted upon them.

In Poland German militias formed in 'Danzig' where they executed and tortured to death Polish POWs. Volksdeutsche across Poland regularly engaged in ethic cleansing of their former neighbours and were recruited into Waffen SS divisions. Similar events occurred in Yugoslavia, where the German backed local militias engaged in similar behaviour.



And here you go into questioning again the Selfdetermination right:
After 1918/1919 Sudetengermans wanted no part in the Czech state but got annexed anyways. Secondly there were later 2 branches of policy mainly followed by the sudeten germans 1 was called "activism" and wanted to actively work with Czechoslovakia and the other called "Negativism" wanted non of it.
Guess to which the NDSAP counted and who organised "Freikorps" to destroy stuff.

Secondly the Czechs had themselves to blame for the lack of support of the sudeten germans, if you look f.e. their decision system or the violent supression of demonstrations etc.

Additionally the Czechs ominated the first republic quite heavily, leading to issues with their cousins the slovaks themselves.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 16:16:47


Post by: blood reaper


The Czech's certainly made mistakes - but regardless of what they would have done, they would've found themselves facing literal 5th columnists.

The Czechs violent suppression was to make sure there wasn't a literal uprising of Nazi armed Sudeten Germans, who actively sought to dismantle Czechoslovakia.

They sowed the wind by supporting the Nazis, and in the end that is why they were kicked out. Had they not been kicked out they'd of almost certainly been hacked to death by the Czech populace.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 16:27:23


Post by: Not Online!!!


 blood reaper wrote:
The Czech's certainly made mistakes - but regardless of what they would have done, they would've found themselves facing literal 5th columnists.

The Czechs violent suppression was to make sure there wasn't a literal uprising of Nazi armed Sudeten Germans, who actively sought to dismantle Czechoslovakia.

They sowed the wind by supporting the Nazis, and in the end that is why they were kicked out. Had they not been kicked out they'd of almost certainly been hacked to death by the Czech populace.


Violent supression of nazis in 1918/1919? Excuse me?

Annexation of a part of a other states ethnicity? Direct vioaltion and afterwards got it signed as "correct" by France mostly in order to further dominate continental europe? Consequently preparing the balkan mess and the Conflicts that followed?


Beyond the SDF (NSDAP sockpuppet) most German parties invovled did not want anything to do beyond economical equality with the Czechs and autonmy, which the Czechs denied them and the slovaks/ hungarian / ukrainians, ergo why you see quite alot of collaboration against the Czechoslovak state.

So you have no idea about Czechoslovakia it seems nor about the political struggles there.



Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 16:27:26


Post by: creeping-deth87


 blood reaper wrote:
Germany did so to a much, much greater extent (see a majority of German heavy tanks).


The thing is, most of Germany's prototypes and retrofits were actually highly successful. The StuG III for example was a brilliant way to retrofit the Panzer III with the L48, and the same goes for the Hetzer 38T. They were cheap, reliable, efficient designs. Those innovations allowed the Panzer III and the Czech tanks to continue service well past the point they would have been obsolete. The heavy tanks were a bit of a mixed bag. The Panzer IV served throughout the entire war and the Tiger was a real menace, but yes the Tiger II, Ferdinand, Elefant, and Maus were very inefficient designs - though, to be fair, those latter vehicles were never intended as mainstays of the Panzerwaffe. They were specialist vehicles, not unlike Hobart's Funnies.


I can largely agree with the points on the French - bar the equipment thing (yes, French tanks were heavily armoured but the turret ergonomics were atrocious).


They certainly weren't perfect machines, but they were superior to anything in the Panzerwaffe in terms of armor and armament. The 88 was the only thing the Germans had that could actually punch through the heavy French tanks.


Beevor in Stalingrad notes a number of times that without their allies the Germans would've struggled to get anywhere - in fact without the 'Hiwis' (Russian traitors) the Germans would've found their manpower situation even more atrocious than they did later in the war.


Did we read the same book? Beevor details how Germany's allies folded quickly when the Soviets launched Operation Uranus. Their failure to hold the Soviets, understandable though it was given their lack of heavy equipment, is what allowed the Russians to encircle the Sixth Army at Stalingrad.


I use it to implicate that the war was a little more than 'German ubermensch beat down dumb Soviet subhumans' - a commonly spouted theme in many video games and online forums. I am explaining my position, and answering your challenge - no I would not slog them but I would slog silly positions taken regarding them which reduce history to some sort of propagandistic meme.


Definitely agree here, though I don't think anyone in this thread was advocating 'German ubermensch beating down Soviet subhumans.' You came down hard on the 'German Army really wasn't that amazing' and that's what I took issue with. They threw out the rulebook and rolled out a whole new way of prosecuting a war. Yes, there was some luck involved, and yes a lot of their success is due in part to the mistakes of their adversaries, but this, IMO, does not in any way diminish their accomplishment. They brought a whole continent to its knees and it took 3 super powers almost 4 years to bring them down. They were in service to a loathsome man and did not have a chance to beat the odds stacked up against them, but as I said before I believe in giving credit where it is due and they were a fearsome fighting force.

Understrength and lacking in equipment, maybe, but the idea the German army was completely spent and unable to do more than garrison duty seems a little far (though it's certainly true of the actual garrison divisions, who usually surrendered as quickly as possible).


I wasn't referring to the whole German army, just the divisions stationed in France. They were second rate at best, shuffled off away from the 'real' fighting in the East. A scant few SS divisions transferred there were the only units of good fighting quality the Germans had in France.

I used casualty rates to push against the typical myth of German 'K/D' ratios (don't get me started on how the Germans cheated regarding AFV kills). And I would happily debate the myth of German superiority on the Eastern Front in regard to kills (which is much more equal when the conflict as a whole is taken into view).


The claimed kills for tank crews on both sides were pretty messed up, but it's no myth that the Germans absolutely wrecked the Red Army. The Germans attacked at the best possible time, immediately after Stalin's purges of the officer corps but before they finished adopting a new doctrinal method to fight. The results were predictably disastrous, and were exacerbated by Stalin's refusal to listen to his commanders and counter-attacking with everything as soon as possible. The Russians were just as unprepared for blitzkrieg as the French were, but geography and the inexhaustible reserves of manpower the Russians had won the day.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 16:36:25


Post by: Kroem


I'm surprised that the Mughal Empire was suggested, although it was a successful empire it suffered quite a few military defeats.

Although it was founded by the grandson of Tamerlane, I don't think you can claim continuity to the the militarily supreme Timirid nation centred on Samarkand.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 16:43:20


Post by: blood reaper


Not Online!!! wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
The Czech's certainly made mistakes - but regardless of what they would have done, they would've found themselves facing literal 5th columnists.

The Czechs violent suppression was to make sure there wasn't a literal uprising of Nazi armed Sudeten Germans, who actively sought to dismantle Czechoslovakia.

They sowed the wind by supporting the Nazis, and in the end that is why they were kicked out. Had they not been kicked out they'd of almost certainly been hacked to death by the Czech populace.


Violent supression of nazis in 1918/1919? Excuse me?

Annexation of a part of a other states ethnicity? Direct vioaltion and afterwards got it signed as "correct" by France mostly in order to further dominate continental europe? Consequently preparing the balkan mess and the Conflicts that followed?


Beyond the SDF (NSDAP sockpuppet) most German parties invovled did not want anything to do beyond economical equality with the Czechs and autonmy, which the Czechs denied them and the slovaks/ hungarian / ukrainians, ergo why you see quite alot of collaboration against the Czechoslovak state.

So you have no idea about Czechoslovakia it seems nor about the political struggles there.



I was speaking of the suppression in 1938.

Had the French really wanted to properly dominiate continental Europe they'd of done the smart thing and liquidated Germany, like Foch had advised. Probably the best solution to the German question, in my mind.

I cannot deny that the Czech's made mistakes but ultimately the Sudatens sealed their fate with the widespread support for the NSDAP. Had they not been removed the Czech's would've exterminated them - and to be fair - I can understand why. By 1938 were fifth columnists and helped dismantle Czechoslovakia.



Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 16:48:56


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


I suggested the Mughals because they kept on going through everyone they went up against until the British stepped onto the scene. For all intents and purposes, form Akbar's conquests up until Aurangzeb's latter years they were the big kid on the block in India.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 16:52:23


Post by: Not Online!!!


 blood reaper wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
The Czech's certainly made mistakes - but regardless of what they would have done, they would've found themselves facing literal 5th columnists.

The Czechs violent suppression was to make sure there wasn't a literal uprising of Nazi armed Sudeten Germans, who actively sought to dismantle Czechoslovakia.

They sowed the wind by supporting the Nazis, and in the end that is why they were kicked out. Had they not been kicked out they'd of almost certainly been hacked to death by the Czech populace.


Violent supression of nazis in 1918/1919? Excuse me?

Annexation of a part of a other states ethnicity? Direct vioaltion and afterwards got it signed as "correct" by France mostly in order to further dominate continental europe? Consequently preparing the balkan mess and the Conflicts that followed?


Beyond the SDF (NSDAP sockpuppet) most German parties invovled did not want anything to do beyond economical equality with the Czechs and autonmy, which the Czechs denied them and the slovaks/ hungarian / ukrainians, ergo why you see quite alot of collaboration against the Czechoslovak state.

So you have no idea about Czechoslovakia it seems nor about the political struggles there.



I was speaking of the suppression in 1938.

Had the French really wanted to properly dominiate continental Europe they'd of done the smart thing and liquidated Germany, like Foch had advised. Probably the best solution to the German question, in my mind.

I cannot deny that the Czech's made mistakes but ultimately the Sudatens sealed their fate with the widespread support for the NSDAP. Had they not been removed the Czech's would've exterminated them - and to be fair - I can understand why. By 1938 were fifth columnists and helped dismantle Czechoslovakia.




Oh now you show your true colours, Germanophobia, no understanding of the key region, nor any position that is holdable in any way or form yet still claiming a morale highhorse whilest in ernest suggesting this at the same time:"Had the French really wanted to properly dominiate continental Europe they'd of done the smart thing and liquidated Germany, like Foch had advised. Probably the best solution to the German question, in my mind."
Do yourself a favour and read up propperly on the history of said region. Or International law and agreements for that matter.

"I cannot deny that the Czech's made mistakes but ultimately the Sudatens sealed their fate with the widespread support for the NSDAP. Had they not been removed the Czech's would've exterminated them - and to be fair - I can understand why. By 1938 were fifth columnists and helped dismantle Czechoslovakia. " The only one dismantling Chekoslovakia was the UK and France.
After they failed to maintain the artifical state.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 17:17:28


Post by: Frazzled


Let's step away from the German thing a bit so the thread doesn't get closed shall we?

Interesting tidbit. The Mayans fought the Spanish for 170 years.

Also Greenland is a superpower. Never lost a war!


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 18:13:23


Post by: Elbows


 Frazzled wrote:
Let's step away from the German thing a bit so the thread doesn't get closed shall we?

Interesting tidbit. The Mayans fought the Spanish for 170 years.

Also Greenland is a superpower. Never lost a war!


This reminds me of my days in college. My college (a large state funded university) didn't possess a football team. Why? Because one of the board of directors had a nephew who was killed in a freak football accident in high school or something. So...whatever. However, one of the local off-campus bookstores sold t-shirts which advertised our college's football team as "Undefeated, Never Scored on!" etc.


Who is military history's most succesful nation?  @ 2019/02/20 20:11:24


Post by: Orlanth


 blood reaper wrote:
It is acceptable. As Harris said, he would've done it again.

Bomber 'Great British Bake Off' Harris did nothing wrong. The Germans had, as he said, bombed in a dozen places and thus brought the reprise upon themselves.


Harris believed he would be executed if the Germans conquered the mainland UK.

 blood reaper wrote:

Even then, Dresden was a vital military hub. Germany might've been losing, but she was not yet defeated. There could not be another 1918, where Germany escaped its punishment.

"However Harris stood his ground saying: 'The bombers kept over a million fit Germans out of the German army… Manning the anti-aircraft defences; making the ammunition, and doing urgent repairs, especially tradesmen.'"


It also allowed the UK to effectively strike against the Third Reich before they were able to launch a land offensive, outside of the desert.

 blood reaper wrote:

Dresden has now become nothing more than a calling card for Nazi apologists, pushed forward by types like David Irving claiming the innocence of Germany. Might I say, Germany is lucky to have remained in existence after the 1st, let alone 2nd World War.


After the second maybe, but the Germans did nothing especially wrong during the first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
Let's step away from the German thing a bit so the thread doesn't get closed shall we?


WW2 is before the cut off between history and politics.

 Frazzled wrote:

Also Greenland is a superpower. Never lost a war!


So is Canada.