NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by the Warrior culture thread, what is, in YOUR opinion, the WORST military culture? I nominate the French, just for the lulz.:D

mwahaha, my thread has created a spin off! I AM VICTORIOUS!!!!

But really, thats tough. I feel like the worst military cultures were wiped out a long time ago...
But you know what? I'm going to say Russia.
They have failed at almost every military task they have attempted, and the few times they have won it was because they threw troops at the enemy until they ran out of ammo.

Germans. Total losers.

mwahaha, my thread has created a spin off! I AM VICTORIOUS!!!!

But really, thats tough. I feel like the worst military cultures were wiped out a long time ago...
But you know what? I'm going to say Russia.
They have failed at almost every military task they have attempted, and the few times they have won it was because they threw troops at the enemy until they ran out of ammo.
*Remembers WWII*

Germans. Total losers.

*Remembers WWII again. Remembers how they kicked the French's butt*

WHAT HOW DARE YOU INSULT THE GERMAN!
No seriously...Germany is really not a nation that comes to mind when I think of military incompetence.

My choices are
France after Napoleon
and
Italy after the Italian Reunification

WHAT HOW DARE YOU INSULT THE GERMAN!
No seriously...Germany is really not a nation that comes to mind when I think of military incompetence.

My choices are
France after Napoleon
and
Italy after the Italian Reunification
Agreed, and Agreed.
The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman. Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when others do most of the fighting." Third Rule of French Warfare; "When incapable of any victory whatsoever - claim someone else's" Fourth rule of French warfare; "When in doubt, send an ally".

It has to be Italy. I mean, they were beaten by a bunch of Ethiopian spear chuckers. And not the Rorke's Drift "they killed 150 of ours we're going to kill their entire nation", the Italians sued for peace. SUED FOR PEACE.

Record in WWII wasn't much better either.

It has to be Italy. I mean, they were beaten by a bunch of Ethiopian spear chuckers. And not the Rorke's Drift "they killed 150 of ours we're going to kill their entire nation", the Italians sued for peace. SUED FOR PEACE.

Record in WWII wasn't much better either.

Mmm. Only in recent times. Before that they were great, and after that, they've improved.

Definitely modern Italy. This is not a slam, they just have more important priorities like food, wine and sex (not necessarily in that order).

Definitely modern Italy. This is not a slam, they just have more important priorities like food, wine and sex (not necessarily in that order).

I wouldn't say modern Italy. Italy after the reunification. It hasn't really done much recently.

How did we forget about Americans?

"You better submit to our economic and political interests or we'll bring democracy to your country!"

EDIT: Oh! Worst as in LEAST militaristic! XD Wow I feel stupid now.

How did we forget about Americans?

"You better submit to our economic and political interests or we'll bring democracy to your country!"

And we do.:D This is about winning, not idiocy through power. By what I'm going by, that would be considered "Great military culture". HOWEVER, it counts as "Horrible Foreign relations culture". Mkay?

I wouldn't say modern Italy. Italy after the reunification. It hasn't really done much recently.

Except produce excellent food and wine and really, really, really friendly men.

I understand that they really resent anyone interrupting their pursuit of the really important things in life with trivialities like war.

Except produce excellent food and wine and really, really, really friendly men.

I understand that they really resent anyone interrupting their pursuit of the really important things in life with trivialities like war.
You know that part well, don't you? ;) XD

Except produce excellent food and wine and really, really, really friendly men.

I understand that they really resent anyone interrupting their pursuit of the really important things in life with trivialities like war.

if only the world were like this... =(

Though ideally, there would be friendly women, too. :D

Actually I believe Modern Italy has a decent aircraft force.

I'm not sure how well they would do in a war time situation...but in terms of numbers its pretty nice.

Actually I believe Modern Italy has a decent aircraft force.

I'm not sure how well they would do in a war time situation...but in terms of numbers its pretty nice.
And the amount they spend.

You know that part well, don't you? ;) XD

I've been told.:D

You know that part well, don't you? ;) XD

*cough* Eurotrip *cough*

*Remembers WWII again. Remembers how they kicked the French's butt*

The French sat at the victors table in that particular tussle though.

Really, the Germans have won like 1 war ever, and spectacularly lost the rest. They are just no good at it. At least the Italians have the sense to hang their leader and change sides when it's going against them.

All around poor show.

if only the world were like this... =(

Though ideally, there would be friendly women, too. :D

*Shudders*

As a social conservative I frown on both alcohol and pre-marital sex...
Which is sort of strange because I'm not even Christian...to me its a moral view rather then a religious. My views are even stranger because I also support gay marriages...of course I'm getting off topic shall we turn our attention to France and why we feel it has fallen so far?

Italy after the Italian Reunification

Pfft. At least the Italians gave Ethiopia what for. I doubt the Germans could even manage that. It would start well, but then they'd invade Russia for some reason and it would all go pear shaped.

The French sat at the victors table in that particular tussle though.

Really, the Germans have won like 1 war ever, and spectacularly lost the rest. They are just no good at it. At least the Italians have the sense to hang their leader and change sides when it's going against them.

All around poor show.

They didn't lose spectacularly in ww2. They over-ran Russia, smashed France and almost demolished the un-sinkable aircraft carrier called Britian.

*Shudders*

As a social conservative I frown on both alcohol and pre-marital sex...
Which is sort of strange because I'm not even Christian...to me its a moral view rather then a religious. My views are even stranger because I also support gay marriages...of course I'm getting off topic shall we turn our attention to France and why we feel it has fallen so far?

What do you mean, fallen?

I believe every time France won a war, they were led either by a woman (who, incidentally was not considered French - Domremy not being part of France at the time) or a Corsican or they were fighting among themselves or laying seige to a bunch of French heretics.

What do you mean, fallen?

I believe every time France won a war, they were led either by a woman (who, incidentally was not considered French - Domremy not being part of France at the time) or a Corsican or they were fighting among themselves or laying seige to a bunch of French heretics.

You have to be standing in order to fall.

Actually I believe Modern Italy has a decent aircraft force.

I'm not sure how well they would do in a war time situation...but in terms of numbers its pretty nice.

IIRC, they just retired the F-104. Anyone who flies the deathtrap Starfighter for 40 some years is either terminally stupid or completely insane.

I have to say Portugal, they've been really quiet for the last 500 or so years...

*Shudders*

As a social conservative I frown on both alcohol and pre-marital sex...
Which is sort of strange because I'm not even Christian...to me its a moral view rather then a religious. My views are even stranger because I also support gay marriages...of course I'm getting off topic shall we turn our attention to France and why we feel it has fallen so far?

Why, I know not what you speak of! I am a responsible 17 year old male, who would never dream of premarital sex and only wants nice women so I can have fruitful, healthy relationships that are as chaste as a convent.

=D

And haha. French. Haha. Though, they do have excellent food...

Italy, starting in late Roman times, and continuing to the present day.

The Neo-Babylonian Empire, which capitulated to the Persians without even trying to fight.

The Polish, not through lack of effort but through geographical misfortune.

Byzantium, for never quite managing to hold the line.

Whoever mentioned Russia is just silly.

They didn't lose spectacularly in ww2. They over-ran Russia, smashed France and almost demolished the un-sinkable aircraft carrier called Britian.

13% of the population dead, entire country smashed, cities in rubble, the remnants starving to death and dependent upon the mercy of the victors for food and medical supplies.

Yah, I'd call that a spectacular loss. Beats anything the French or the Italians ever managed.

Do you mean Worst Military Culture as in, most Pacifist? in which case id say Tibet, i cant think of a time when theyve ever fought anyone...fuckin oppressive Chinamen...

Or, as in, the Military Culture that fights the worst? Which i have to say goes to France, not just for lulz...honestly, other than Napoleon, and Joan of Arc what is there? lots of failure to Rome, Britain, Spain,Germany etc....and bail outs by again, Britain, and the USofA...

Beats anything the French or the Italians ever managed.

Yeah, but in total Wars...Germany has won a Hell of a lot more than France...

Although Rome is hard to top...I think Italy should call on that history more often, after all, Julius Cesar WAY more impressive than Garibaldi...

While there are certainly worse warrior cultures Germany is on my list for fumbling world conquest. They get top marks for their great wartime tech and went from being crippled by depression to controling most of Europe and toward the end of the war had in some areas a 10 year leap in technology over America and the Soviets. And then they lost it all. They were like a year away from dropping a nuke on NYC and could have done 1-way bombing raids on DC to force a truce but they didn't. It's like taking a huge lead in a foot race and then tripping so much that the best you can hope for is a tie and then fail to do even that.

Im going to go with Zanzibar. Seriously, losing a war in 40 mins. That's terrible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War

Im going to go with Zanzibar. Seriously, losing a war in 40 mins. That's terrible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War

WHOA!!!...Zanzibar's real? lol...I thought it was just from that song, and the Halo Level, lol...

I have to say Portugal, they've been really quiet for the last 500 or so years...

Ehmmm, they were the last European country to abandon their colonies, up to 1974 crushing every uprising with as much military force as they could muster... how are they so quiet for these 500 years then? :confused:

WHOA!!!...Zanzibar's real? lol...I thought it was just from that song, and the Halo Level, lol...
Now it's New Zanzibar. Wait, it's just been changed to Pepsi presents New Zanzibar.

Now it's New Zanzibar. Wait, it's just been changed to Pepsi presents New Zanzibar.

lmao, nothing in africa except Egypt and South Africa really matters anyway...

They just squabble amongst themselves and waste any resources or revenue they can ever muster...They should learn from us and direct their hate at everyone else, lol...

The French sat at the victors table in that particular tussle though.

Really, the Germans have won like 1 war ever, and spectacularly lost the rest. They are just no good at it. At least the Italians have the sense to hang their leader and change sides when it's going against them.

All around poor show.

Are you fakeposting? Anyone with more than cursory knowledge of World Wars I and II knows that Germany was basically screwed over by awful leadership at the very top--Kaiser Wilhelm in WWI and Hitler in WWII. The German Army and General Staff were top-notch, especially in World War II; an ordinary German soldier at the beginning of the war was on average far better trained and led than his foreign contemporaries. What's amazing is that they were able to hold on as long as they did against such incredible odds (brought against them by their idiotic leaders). Even through the beginning of Barbarossa, victory lay within their grasp--it was only Hitler's direct intervention diverting troops away from the drive on Moscow to take the Donets Basin that saved the Russians in '41.

In terms of military culture, Germany sits at the top, not the bottom (pre-Cold War, anyway).

Are you fakeposting? Anyone with more than cursory knowledge of World Wars I and II knows that Germany was basically screwed over by awful leadership at the very top--Kaiser Wilhelm in WWI and Hitler in WWII. The German Army and General Staff were top-notch, especially in World War II; an ordinary German soldier at the beginning of the war was on average far better trained and led than his foreign contemporaries. What's amazing is that they were able to hold on as long as they did against such incredible odds (brought against them by their idiotic leaders)--it was only Hitler's direct intervention diverting troops away from the drive on Moscow to take the Donets Basin that saved the Russians in '41.

In terms of military culture, Germany sits at the top, not the bottom (pre-Cold War, anyway).

I think id have to agree there, If Hitler was smart hedve held that Soviet Non-Aggression pact until he'd finished off Britain, then Hit the USSR...that way you could throw your whole strength at them...

I disagree that the Germans had better technology than the allies during WWII. They had better tanks and they invented ballistic missiles. Maybe submarines - ish. (Though the US probably had the edge there, given the submarine campaign in the Pacific which we can't talk about b/c it spoils the moral indignation at Hitler's U-boats, LOL).

The allies on the other hand had stuff which, you know, actually wins wars. Proximity fuses, better radar, digital computers, heavy bombers, mulberry harbors, stuff like that.

And the germans were a very long way from a working A-bomb because Heisenberg didn't like hitler. They hadn't even calculated critical mass by the end of the war, something that the tube alloys group had done by 1939.

Also, I can't actually think of a war that Germany ever won. They' re a bit shit at it really. Make nice cars and sausages tho.

Are you fakeposting? Anyone with more than cursory knowledge of World Wars I and II knows that Germany was basically screwed over by awful leadership at the very top--Kaiser Wilhelm in WWI and Hitler in WWII. The German Army and General Staff were top-notch, especially in World War II; an ordinary German soldier at the beginning of the war was on average far better trained and led than his foreign contemporaries. What's amazing is that they were able to hold on as long as they did against such incredible odds (brought against them by their idiotic leaders). Even through the beginning of Barbarossa, victory lay within their grasp--it was only Hitler's direct intervention diverting troops away from the drive on Moscow to take the Donets Basin that saved the Russians in '41.

In terms of military culture, Germany sits at the top, not the bottom (pre-Cold War, anyway).

It can't be a very good military culture if it consistently produces shitty military leadership, can it?

I think to actually qualify as a great military culture, you actually have to win a war at least once. Which Germany hasn't.

I think id have to agree there, If Hitler was smart hedve held that Soviet Non-Aggression pact until he'd finished off Britain, then Hit the USSR...that way you could throw your whole strength at them...

Yes, but this is assuming that Hitler had the common sense to keep the Luftwaffe attacking the airfields, not the cities. If he did this and crippled the RAF then maybe the Kriegsmarine would have stood half a chance at forcing a landing on the south coast, otherwise there was no way a strategic bombing campaign would have worn down the UK, especially if the US intervened as it did in 1941.

Also, I can't actually think of a war that Germany ever won. They' re a bit shit at it really. Make nice cars and sausages tho.

They won the Franco-Prussian War...although it doesnt take too much to whip France...hell that was their first move in WWI and WWII, France had to beg the Limeys to bail em out...who in turned had to beg us to finish it up...

Guess more evidence to the award going to France...

Yes, but this is assuming that Hitler had the common sense to keep the Luftwaffe attacking the airfields, not the cities. If he did this and crippled the RAF then maybe the Kriegsmarine would have stood half a chance at forcing a landing on the south coast, otherwise there was no way a strategic bombing campaign would have worn down the UK, especially if the US intervened as it did in 1941.

True, We do Rule at Killing Germans, lol...

Of course if we are delving into Alternate History, There's always the possibility of Japan actually Occupying Hawaii and using it as a stage to hit LA which wouldve been a smart move IMO, tying us up to hit Japs...

It can't be a very good military culture if it consistently produces shitty military leadership, can it?

I think to actually qualify as a great military culture, you actually have to win a war at least once. Which Germany hasn't.

...Otto the Great. Fredrick Barbarossa. The Teutonic Knights. Eugene of Savoy. The Prussians in general. Otto von Bismarck.

Germany has, with the exception of the past hundred years, benefited from incredibly military leadership and tactics. Their shows in the world wars were extremely impressive, if not doomed to failure.

I'm really disagree that Germany has a poor military record. They won many a conflict, and only came out as total losers a few times.

They won the Franco-Prussian War...although it doesnt take too much to whip France...hell that was their first move in WWI and WWII, France had to beg the Limeys to bail em out...who in turned had to beg us to finish it up...

Guess more evidence to the award going to France...

That wasn't Germany. That was Prussia backed by the North German confederation and the South German confederation.

Germany didn't come into existence until after the franco prussian war. And since then their record has been one of constantly getting kicked in the nuts.

Prolly shouldn't have mashed themselves together like that. Might have kept beating the frenchies that way.

That wasn't Germany. That was Prussia backed by the North German confederation and the South German confederation.

Germany didn't come into existence until after the franco prussian war. And since then their record has been one of constantly getting kicked in the nuts.

Prolly shouldn't have mashed themselves together like that. Might have kept beating the frenchies that way.

Probably somethin to that, after all wasnt Hitler from Austria anyway?

...Otto the Great. Fredrick Barbarossa. The Teutonic Knights. Eugene of Savoy. The Prussians in general. Otto von Bismarck.

Germany has, with the exception of the past hundred years, benefited from incredibly military leadership and tactics. Their shows in the world wars were extremely impressive, if not doomed to failure.

I'm really disagree that Germany has a poor military record. They won many a conflict, and only came out as total losers a few times.

Not germany. See previous post.

Individual bits of what became germany might have kicked ass before 1871. But Germany itself is piss poor.

And actually, even before then, that region did have a habit of being the playground of other European powers. So it's nothing stellar or anything. Not even Napoleon standard or anything.

Anyways...the French are pretty bad, and the Italians in the past few hundred years as well.

Russia was absolutely horrid for a long time, but eventually (sort of) shaped up into a real fighting force.

That wasn't Germany. That was Prussia backed by the North German confederation and the South German confederation.

Germany didn't come into existence until after the franco prussian war. And since then their record has been one of constantly getting kicked in the nuts.

Prolly shouldn't have mashed themselves together like that. Might have kept beating the frenchies that way.

The world is long overdue for a combined British-Prussian frog-bashing session, but sadly that dream will never come true :(

Gah! Another, "Tibet never hurt anybody, and France can't defend herself" festival, eh?

Do you mean Worst Military Culture as in, most Pacifist? in which case id say Tibet, i cant think of a time when theyve ever fought anyone...fuckin oppressive Chinamen...

Or, as in, the Military Culture that fights the worst? Which i have to say goes to France, not just for lulz...honestly, other than Napoleon, and Joan of Arc what is there? lots of failure to Rome, Britain, Spain,Germany etc....and bail outs by again, Britain, and the USofA...

Tell it to Bhutan, buddy! Tibet could be in there not for never fighting anybody, but for having the dubious honour of being a nation that invaded Bhutan and lost, several times, even when they had help from the infamous Mongols.

And if France is so hopeless, how come it is a thousand year old state that now stands on the largest national territory in Western Europe and continues to control imperial holdings in North and South America, Oceania, and strong military presence in Africa?

If the French are losers, they're the most ingenous losers I've even encountered. Most people come off somehow diminished by a military defeat, not a global power.

Not germany. See previous post.

Individual bits of what became germany might have kicked ass before 1871. But Germany itself is piss poor.

And actually, even before then, that region did have a habit of being the playground of other European powers. So it's nothing stellar or anything. Not even Napoleon standard or anything.

I wasn't aware that we were not considering pre-nation Germany. And no, you are right; Napoleon is the gold standard of European military in my opinion.

Not that he was all that great anyways.

Gah! Another, "Tibet never hurt anybody, and France can't defend herself" festival, eh?



Tell it to Bhutan, buddy! Tibet could be in there not for never fighting anybody, but for having the dubious honour of being a nation that invaded Bhutan and lost, several times, even when they had help from the infamous Mongols.

And if France is so hopeless, how come it is a thousand year old state that now stands on the largest national territory in Western Europe and continues to control imperial holdings in North and South America, Oceania, and strong military presence in Africa?

If the French are losers, they're the most ingenous losers I've even encountered. Most people come off somehow diminished by a military defeat, not a global power.

Because the French state is not a thousand years old, at most it is a couple of hundred. Technically it is only 50 years old (founding of 5th Republic) :P

The world is long overdue for a combined British-Prussian frog-bashing session, but sadly that dream will never come true :(

Idk, what was that party in the UK that advocated separation from the EU? the British Independence Party or something...If that can gain some ground and the Krauts can get something similar...maybe Francell get her panties in a wad and fight to keep em...

then the limeys and Krauts can kick some Frog ass...hell, We'd probably join in for fun...or maybe just buy French Guyana to complete our purchase of French America, lol...

Because the French state is not a thousand years old, at most it is a couple of hundred. Technically it is only 50 years old (founding of 5th Republic) :P

Heh, well, that perhaps is their genius, then. It's not a defeat, it's just a makeover opportunity, eh.

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/719/germans0tqaq8.jpg

Now, speaking more seriously, the former Czechoslovakia had the worst military culture. They just came to "We give up, now our land belongs to the Fuhrer" without even trying.*

*At least in Hearts of Iron 2, it's possible to win.

Anyways...the French are pretty bad, and the Italians in the past few hundred years as well.

Russia was absolutely horrid for a long time, but eventually (sort of) shaped up into a real fighting force.

Russians kicked ass in 1812. Went downhill after that. I think you actually have to invade russia and get near moscow before they sober up and do anything.

If the French are losers, they're the most ingenous losers I've even encountered. Most people come off somehow diminished by a military defeat, not a global power.

They are rather ingenious losers...afterall every time they get their ass kicked, they manage to get Britain and the USofA come in to help them...They may not be great warriors...Diplomatic Geniuses though, lol...

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/719/germans0tqaq8.jpg

Now, speaking more seriously, the former Czechoslovakia had the worst military culture. They just came to "We give up, now our land belongs to the Fuhrer" without even trying.*

*At least in Hearts of Iron 2, it's possible to win.

Trying to crack the Czechs in 38 is surprisingly hard, it just makes you appreciate what would have happened if they had fought.

I'm currently playing a game as the USSR and when the Sudetenland crisis came up, Czechslovakia joined the Axis. What a retarded choice :S

Yeah, but in total Wars...Germany has won a Hell of a lot more than France...
Not really. Basically from the time they got rid of the English after the 100 years war they kicked all the ass in the world, with the exception of WW 0.1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years%27_War). Then after the revolution they came back and kicked some more until 1871.

Come to think of it, that's probably more than the English did over the years.

Russians kicked ass in 1812. Went downhill after that. I think you actually have to invade russia and get near moscow before they sober up and do anything.

That's the whole trick the Russians have. Apparently they are friggin IMPOSSIBLE to invade.

Stupid Russian winters.

Not that he was all that great anyways.

The greatest commander in History is either the Duke of Wellington or Alexander the Great.

The greatest commander in History is either the Duke of Wellington or Alexander the Great.

Alexander, Genghis, and Timur the Lame, in my opinion.

The three classic "World Conquerors."

Wellington WAS a motherfucker, though.

The greatest commander in History is either the Duke of Wellington or Alexander the Great.

I think imll put my money on Grant, Sherman, Lee and Jackson...

I mean they were THE greatest Military Minds of the age...I mean, if we hadnt been busy fucking eachother up, Just think of the Destruction we couldve Wrought in say, the Crimean War, or the Franco-Prussian War...Coulda really fucked up the European landscape in the Crimean war, or possibly saved Frances ass even earlier, lol...

Man, that earlier WWII thing got me salivating some AH, lol...

I think imll put my money on Grant, Sherman, Lee and Jackson...

I mean they were THE greatest Military Minds of the age...I mean, if we hadnt been busy fucking eachother up, Just think of the Destruction we couldve Wrought in say, the Crimean War, or the Franco-Prussian War...Coulda really fucked up the European landscape in the Crimean war, or possibly saved Frances ass even earlier, lol...

Man, that earlier WWII thing got me salivating some AH, lol...

Please...Grant? Lee? I'm not saying they weren't very skilled commanders...but the best ever?

Come to think of it, that's probably more than the English did over the years.

Since Henry the VIII died it's never been english policy to try and completely subjugate other European powers. It's not sensible. The idea was always to keep Europe at each other throats by 'strategically' helping one side or the other, without actually contributing very much, thus leaving england free to pursue other interests. (Like persecuting the Irish, or setting up a big Empire).

Things got a bit out of hand in the period 1914-1945 because people started to believe the propaganda; but otherwise it's mostly been something that England has stuck to.

Please...Grant? Lee? I'm not saying they weren't very skilled commanders...but the best ever?

Well, maybe not Individually the greatest...But, as a team, commanding the same Army, i think that group could probably take anyone that came their way...

Since Henry the VIII died it's never been english policy to try and completely subjugate other European powers. It's not sensible. The idea was always to keep Europe at each other throats by 'strategically' helping one side or the other, without actually contributing very much, thus leaving england free to pursue other interests. (Like persecuting the Irish, or setting up a big Empire).

Things got a bit out of hand in the period 1914-1945 because people started to believe the propaganda; but otherwise it's mostly been something that England has stuck to.

True, England's very good at playing the big Risk Board,so to speak, lol..We beat you in a stand up fight, but, hell world wide you still manage to come out on top...

How the hell do you pull India out of your ass in the American Revolution, lol...doesnt even make sense, lmao...

Well, maybe not Individually the greatest...But, as a team, commanding the same Army, i think that group could probably take anyone that came their way...

I think the thing about the american military is that it has historically been able to adapt more quickly than its opponents. So it might start off a bit shit sometimes, but its quicker to adjust its tactics and ideas (even its organization) when it sees something isn't working. So it ends up kicking all kinds of ass. (As the japanese found out).

It has to be Italy. I mean, they were beaten by a bunch of Ethiopian spear chuckers. And not the Rorke's Drift "they killed 150 of ours we're going to kill their entire nation", the Italians sued for peace. SUED FOR PEACE.

Record in WWII wasn't much better either.

(Allegedly historical conversation...)

Von Ribbentrop (Nazi Germany's 'Foreign Minister'): "And if there is a war, Italy will stand alongside us!"
Winston Churchill: "That's fair, we got stuck with them last time..."

:D

Ehmmm, they were the last European country to abandon their colonies, up to 1974 crushing every uprising with as much military force as they could muster... how are they so quiet for these 500 years then? :confused:

WRONG! Zimbabwe got its independence from the U.K. in 1980.

I think the worst military culture is France.

Since Henry the VIII died it's never been english policy to try and completely subjugate other European powers. It's not sensible.
To be fair, they also spent a lot of time at each other's throats during that period. ;)

Italy.
I heard a good joke about the Italians once.
Their tanks are really advanced, you see. They have six gears- one to go forward and five to go back!

They're just a bunch of fair weather warriors.

I say the US...
I mean, take for example the War of Independence with Britain, gettin caned by, what? 12,000 British soldiers in the whole country, and to be saved, in the end, by of all things a Frenchman? A Dutchman and a Spaniard?

The war of 1812...Again, ass kicked by numbers VASTLY inferior to their own (About 50,000 British against 500,000 (including militia)

Sure, the Mexican - American war was a victory, but a Phyrric one, and loads of the Americans just left! Cowards.

They won the Spanish - American war...but only cause disease wiped out the Spanish...

And then we get onto WWI...entered late...but the extra cannon fodder helped the allies. :)

WWII...late again! But suffered more casualties than Britain, who had been fighting for six years? Somethings not right there...

Then what? Vietnam? Ass kicked.
Iraq (Desert Storm)...they won...but the coalition won really...

So yeah...apart from numbers and industrial might (which is, granted, all that is needed) I'd say the US.

Failing that, the French. Definitely.

How many gears does a French tank have?
Six.
Five reverse and one forward in case attacked from behind.

WHAT HOW DARE YOU INSULT THE GERMAN!
No seriously...Germany is really not a nation that comes to mind when I think of military incompetence.
Still, attacking CCCP when still engaged with Britain wasn't quite a genial move, or anything von Clausewitz would have approved of.


France after Napoleon

They lost some edge after him, still won at Magenta.

Italy after the Italian Reunification
Well, Italy didn't fare that bad in WW1.

Still, attacking CCCP when still engaged with Britain wasn't quite a genial move, or anything von Clausewitz would have approved of.


Heh, when is attacking somebody ever genial? When the stormtroopers are dressed as clowns?
Sorry :)

I will say USA, remeber Vietnam, Afghanistan and Irak... They're feeling they are the best but thay cannot win against people armed with sticks and stones...

... and AKs, and RPGs. Come on, give them some credit!
Good points about the Americans, I must say!

I wasn't aware that we were not considering pre-nation Germany. And no, you are right; Napoleon is the gold standard of European military in my opinion.

Not that he was all that great anyways.

He realized one thing. If you put all of your men in one place, all of them can fight.;)

Inspired by the Warrior culture thread, what is, in YOUR opinion, the WORST military culture? I nominate the French, just for the lulz.:D
... eh because they lost in World War two?

And then failed in Vietnam in exactly the same way as the US for the exact same reasons?

Nice one...
But you know what? I'm going to say Russia.
They have failed at almost every military task they have attempted, and the few times they have won it was because they threw troops at the enemy until they ran out of ammo.
Aye, of course, the Russians only won in World War 2 because the Germans ran out of bullets, and not, for example, because they had the best, and cheapest, medium tank of the war, an extremely well-trained pioneer and reconnaissance force by 1944, and increasingly good divisional commanders as new talent from after the Great Purge matured...



My own nomination would probably be one of those lame states that none of you have mentioned in your haste to bash countries you don't like. Eh, Iraq or something. They're kinda pish at wars.

I say the US...
I mean, take for example the War of Independence with Britain, gettin caned by, what? 12,000 British soldiers in the whole country, and to be saved, in the end, by of all things a Frenchman? A Dutchman and a Spaniard?

And...? You take what is in effect thirteen seperate countries with no trained army and put them against the worlds greatest superpower.

The war of 1812...Again, ass kicked by numbers VASTLY inferior to their own (About 50,000 British against 500,000 (including militia)

Not at all. After the first U.S. offensive into Canada got some major gains, a British counterattack drove them back to New York and the war just stagnated at that point until New Orleans.

And at sea, the Royal Navy got their asses handed to them.

Sure, the Mexican - American war was a victory, but a Phyrric one, and loads of the Americans just left! Cowards.

I fail to see how this was a phyrric victory. Zachory Taylor took five thousand American troops against twenty thousand Mexican and won. Never mind Vera Cruz.

They won the Spanish - American war...but only cause disease wiped out the Spanish...

You could say that about every war anybody won up until World War Two.

And then we get onto WWI...entered late...but the extra cannon fodder helped the allies. :)

Not arguing that one :) we really weren't needed, but we did help end the war faster.

WWII...late again! But suffered more casualties than Britain, who had been fighting for six years? Somethings not right there...

Of course we suffered more casualties than britain, but then again how many major battles did the British fight in prior to the invasion launched by the US! After that, we actually had more troops commited than the British.

Then what? Vietnam? Ass kicked.

Everybody has a bad day. =P

Iraq (Desert Storm)...they won...but the coalition won really...

Not really. The vast majority of the troops were American.

So yeah...apart from numbers and industrial might (which is, granted, all that is needed) I'd say the US.

Then how come we are still here? After many, many earnest efforts to wipe us out, I hasten to add.

Failing that, the French. Definitely.

How many gears does a French tank have?
Six.
Five reverse and one forward in case attacked from behind.

haha....French tanks.

WRONG! Zimbabwe got its independence from the U.K. in 1980.
WELL Rhodesia actually declared independence in 1965. We didn't give them independence, but were they independent? Yes.
I think the worst military culture is France.
Dunno about that myself.

Aye, of course, the Russians only won in World War 2 because the Germans ran out of bullets, and not, for example, because they had the best, and cheapest, medium tank of the war, an extremely well-trained pioneer and reconnaissance force by 1944, and increasingly good divisional commanders as new talent from after the Great Purge matured...


I had actually been kidding about Russia...

Their military acts as the hub from which extends all their governing/social-engineering. Such devotion to militarism is proven ineffectual (probably b/c of state and military not being separate) by a was lost to Krogans: a warlord-organized people (smaller more efficient units). A Salarian bio-weapon, the genophage, allowed the Krogan genocide. So the Turians are all about military but their military sucks, their efforts were negligible in degeating the Krogans and but they're still treated as equals by genocidal Salarians and slutty Asari. Maybe not the worst military culture; anyone know one more overrated?

And...? You take what is in effect thirteen seperate countries with no trained army and put them against the worlds greatest superpower.
The world's greatest superpower sent too few troops, and its other superpower enemies helped what was to become the US massively. Were it not for the French, your country would probably have never gained independence.
Not at all. After the first U.S. offensive into Canada got some major gains, a British counterattack drove them back to New York and the war just stagnated at that point until New Orleans.
Quite.
And at sea, the Royal Navy got their asses handed to them.
"Massively overstretched conscript navy beaten by often very experienced opponents with more and better guns shocker"
Of course we suffered more casualties than britain, but then again how many major battles did the British fight in prior to the invasion launched by the US! After that, we actually had more troops commited than the British.
Eh the entire African campaign, plus some more minor Pacific actions (although you guys did most of the work here to be fair), in addition to stopping the Germans from taking us over what with the Battle of Britain, and the fairly large and important efforts of us and, more to the point, our scientists in the Battle of the Atlantic.
Then how come we are still here? After many, many earnest efforts to wipe us out, I hasten to add.
Earnest efforts?

Really?

1776 - slightly half-arsed by the British, we had new bits of Empire to take and all that
1812 - extremely half-arsed, because we were mainly fighting the French who were, at this point, a greater military force on the continent (and hence in the world) than anybody else.

Those wars with anyone who wasn't British - eh no.
haha....French tanks.
The Lelerc is as good a tank, or possibly a better one than the Abrams, and the AMX 30 was certainly superior to the M60. French military equipment has always been relatively good, French generalsmanship is the issue.

I had actually been kidding about Russia...
Ah ok.

French tanks have always been good... since before the US had any. They produced the first tanks with directionable turrets, had the best tanks in the world at the start of WWII, and the AMX-30 and LeClerc have already been covered.

As to the American Revolution, apart from anything else, the fact that Jamaica alone was worth more than all the rebel colonies must put into perspective the British effort, or lack of it.

The world's greatest superpower sent too few troops, and its other superpower enemies helped what was to become the US massively. Were it not for the French, your country would probably have never gained independence.

Quite. It always amuses me when people trash the French only to realize that we are here because of them

"Massively overstretched conscript navy beaten by often very experienced opponents with more and better guns shocker"

And your point is....? Back at that time, it was widely accepted that the English Navy was the best in the world, and they got defeated.

Eh the entire African campaign, plus some more minor Pacific actions (although you guys did most of the work here to be fair), in addition to stopping the Germans from taking us over what with the Battle of Britain, and the fairly large and important efforts of us and, more to the point, our scientists in the Battle of the Atlantic.

We also fought in Africa. And don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to downplay what the British did; I'm simply pointing out that we fielded far more troops in the European theater. The Battle of Britain did not have near as many casualties as ground combat (Again, not trying to downplay it, just pointing it out).

Earnest efforts?

Really?

1776 - slightly half-arsed by the British, we had new bits of Empire to take and all that
1812 - extremely half-arsed, because we were mainly fighting the French who were, at this point, a greater military force on the continent (and hence in the world) than anybody else.

The only reason you didn't send more troops in 1776 was because your parliment was getting pissed off. 1812, not gonna argue.

Those wars with anyone who wasn't British - eh no.

I could say the U.S. Civil War, but I'm not sure it counts...

The Lelerc is as good a tank, or possibly a better one than the Abrams, and the AMX 30 was certainly superior to the M60. French military equipment has always been relatively good, French generalsmanship is the issue.

Better than the M1? Maybe. Better than the M1A2? No.
And yeah, the AMX-30 was far superior than the M60.

French Foreign Legion kicks ass and chews bubblegum, so that rules the French out.

Lessee...

I nominate the US - It takes military culture of the worst kind to invade another country in the 21st century :p

... eh because they lost in World War two?

And then failed in Vietnam in exactly the same way as the US for the exact same reasons?


And almost lost the hundred years war were it not for as non-french woman who led them to victory. And lost against the Romans. And lost in WW1...

Wait, France lost WWI, now? Man, that's not how my great granddad told it after coming back from the Somme.

Wait, France lost WWI, now? Man, that's not how my great granddad told it after coming back from the Somme.

The Germans would have wiped France out, if France hadn't called for help from Britain, and the rest.

Wait, France lost WWI, now? Man, that's not how my great granddad told it after coming back from the Somme.

Yeah, I feel like they didn't lose that one...
come close? Very. Actually lose? Not so much.

Byzantium, for never quite managing to hold the line.


Then howcome they didn't manage to hold the line for over a thousand years? They defeated the arabs and seljuk turks many times.

And your point is....? Back at that time, it was widely accepted that the English Navy was the best in the world, and they got defeated.
Well yes, in a similar way to the US in Vietnam. Couldn't actually deploy enough well-trained soldiers. Bit of a shame, and oughtn't to have lost.
We also fought in Africa.
Aye, just a bit late.
And don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to downplay what the British did; I'm simply pointing out that we fielded far more troops in the European theater.
Well I can't disagree with that.
The Battle of Britain did not have near as many casualties as ground combat (Again, not trying to downplay it, just pointing it out).
Stopped hundreds of thousands of casualties, though. Well for us. Made the Germans go into Russia, which sorta lost them the war.
The only reason you didn't send more troops in 1776 was because your parliment was getting pissed off.
Also because we wanted to send more British troops to India, and less of the East India Company, who were basically like Halliburton.
I could say the U.S. Civil War, but I'm not sure it counts...
Aye, I'm not sure whether Americans fighting Americans counts as trying to wipe out America :p
Better than the M1? Maybe. Better than the M1A2? No.
I dunno, the M1A2 doesn't have close in defence systems like the Leclerc does, and nor does it have reactive armour, another advantage of the French tank.

The Germans would have wiped France out, if France hadn't called for help from Britain, and the rest.

Ah, okay, revisionist history, sorry, I didn't realise that was what we were doing :) Carry on!

And almost lost the hundred years war were it not for as non-french woman who led them to victory.
Yes, transation : They didn't lose.

Also keep in mind that their actual opponents, the English royal family, were of French stock.
And lost against the Romans.
Greater powers than the Gauls were also destroyed by Romans. The Carthaginians, for example.
And lost in WW1...
No, they didn't.
The Germans would have wiped France out, if France hadn't called for help from Britain, and the rest.
France didn't 'call for help' from Britain, we honoured treaty obligations to Belgium, which is why we got involved.

Also anything we deployed against the Germans before the Somme was largely a pittance compared to the vast losses suffered by the French to keep the status quo, so I'd not discount them at all.

Well yes, in a similar way to the US in Vietnam. Couldn't actually deploy enough well-trained soldiers. Bit of a shame, and oughtn't to have lost.

sigh* yeah. I know that feeling.

Aye, just a bit late.

Africa? Not really...I'm about to go check, but I believe that the real counterattack against the Afrika Corp didn't start until the U.S. arrived. Yay Patton!


Stopped hundreds of thousands of casualties, though. Well for us. Made the Germans go into Russia, which sorta lost them the war.

For sure. Sealion would have been a mess.

Also because we wanted to send more British troops to India, and less of the East India Company, who were basically like Halliburton.

Point remains. Being a superpower blows =/


I dunno, the M1A2 doesn't have close in defence systems like the Leclerc does, and nor does it have reactive armour, another advantage of the French tank.

Sure it does...I'm not sure what you mean by close in defense, but it has two M240's and an M2. Also, I am pretty sure they have started putting ERA on to the Abrams...not positive, I'm gonna check that.


Also keep in mind that their actual opponents, the English royal family, were of French stock.


To be fair, what European royal family wasn't intermarried beyond comprehension?

Sure it does...I'm not sure what you mean by close in defense, but it has two M240's and an M2. Also, I am pretty sure they have started putting ERA on to the Abrams...not positive, I'm gonna check that.

No, they're not fitting ERA onto the Abrams.

As for the Leclerc it has the Galix system which can fire antipersonnel grenades, smoke grenades (which the Abrams has, of course) and infrared screening grenades.


Galix demonstration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=govQXYgh_j4)

sigh* yeah. I know that feeling.
Aye it kinda sucks.
Africa? Not really...I'm about to go check, but I believe that the real counterattack against the Afrika Corp didn't start until the U.S. arrived. Yay Patton!
I'd personally say that by the time the US got to North Africa we'd already broken the back of the Afrika Korps at the second battle of El Alamein. But then I would.
For sure. Sealion would have been a mess.
Quite.
Point remains. Being a superpower blows =/
Agreed.
Sure it does...I'm not sure what you mean by close in defense, but it has two M240's and an M2.
The Leclerc has an M2 as a coax weapon, and a remote controlled 7.62mm AAMG, as well as its own defence system called GALIX which fires smoke grenades, but is also fitted with fragmentation grenades. It's a bit like the German Nahverteidigungswaffe from world war 2.
Also, I am pretty sure they have started putting ERA on to the Abrams...not positive, I'm gonna check that.
Good point, it's being fitted to the side armour of any Abrams with TUSK. Still, not entirely sure they thought that one through, seeing as it's the kind of thing which could well get US soldiers blown up.

The Leclerc has NERA, which is less effective but doesn't explode.
To be fair, what European royal family isn't intermarried beyond comprehension?
Fixed :p

No, they're not fitting ERA onto the Abrams.
I just checked. Yes they are, with TUSK, to the side armour of Abrams tanks. The rear aspect is getting slat armour.

French Foreign Legion kicks ass and chews bubblegum, so that rules the French out.

Lessee...

I nominate the US - It takes military culture of the worst kind to invade another country in the 21st century :p

Note the word foreign - none of the people in it are actually French.

Note the word foreign - none of the people in it are actually French.
Actually, strange as this may sound, from 1831 until 1962, the third largest contribution (after the Germans, who make up most of the legion even today, and the Italians) was from French citizens, who always make up about a quarter of the force.

Not germany. See previous post.

Individual bits of what became germany might have kicked ass before 1871. But Germany itself is piss poor.

And actually, even before then, that region did have a habit of being the playground of other European powers. So it's nothing stellar or anything. Not even Napoleon standard or anything.

The thread is on the worst military culture, not the worst military nation. All cultures and people mentioned were culturally German.

Then howcome they didn't manage to hold the line for over a thousand years? They defeated the arabs and seljuk turks many times.

They lost a little bit at a time. The borders shrank slowly and never grew, except during the tenure of their one and only really great general, Belisarius, who was humiliated and almost executed by the emperor for his trouble.

Not at all. After the first U.S. offensive into Canada got some major gains, a British counterattack drove them back to New York and the war just stagnated at that point until New Orleans.


Actually not true. If anything it was the other way around. The war of 1812 saw the American's get their asses handed to them many times by Issac Brock until he died at Queensville. Then 1813 comes around and the battle began to stagnate due to a lack of British interest in the war. The American's had a much larger army and many more regular forces but they consistently lost to small british/American contingents. (Queensville, Detroit, Bever dam and many many more.)

Aztek / Mexico.

Aztek / Mexico.

The Aztecs had a great track record until the Spanish arrived.

The Mexicans...never really did much.

Aztek / Mexico.


To be fair, the Aztecs could have won if they also had horses and firearms.

To be fair, the Aztecs could have won if they also had horses and firearms.

Nope. They'd also need steel armor/weaponry and a bit of immunity to European disease.

Zanzibar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War)

Zanzibar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War)
Best war ever from our perspective :salute:

Best war ever from our perspective :salute:

Didnt suffer a single casualtiy and even got the money for your shells back :P

To be fair, the Aztecs could have won if they also had horses and firearms.

They had numerical superiority, but lost a significant chunk of it because of their failure to keep the conquered tribes (Tlaxcala) allied. They also had a vastly superior knowledge of the land, and a city (Tenochitlan) built to be able to withstand invasions...and they lost.

The Aztecs had a great track record until the Spanish arrived.

The Mexicans...never really did much.

Being better than the Tlazcala, and the Olmec =/ Good.

And the Mexicans lost to Texas, and lost half their land to America.

They had numerical superiority, but lost a significant chunk of it because of their failure to keep the conquered tribes (Tlaxcala) allied. They also had a vastly superior knowledge of the land, and a city (Tenochitlan) built to be able to withstand invasions...and they lost.



Being better than the Tlazcala, and the Olmec =/ Good.

And the Mexicans lost to Texas, and lost half their land to America.

your leaving out disease. They lost ALOT to sickness ie. smallpox

The Aztecs had a great track record until the Spanish arrived.

The Mexicans...never really did much.

The Mexicans would have been defeated by the French, if not for American support.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_intervention_in_Mexico

your leaving out disease. They lost ALOT to sickness ie. smallpox

They lost maybe a third of their population. But that means that Cortez STILL conquered a city of around 100,000 with about 1,000 Spaniards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_conquest_of_Mexico

Inspired by the Warrior culture thread, what is, in YOUR opinion, the WORST military culture? I nominate the French, just for the lulz.:D

the swiss. and the chinese.

The Swiss were among the most famous and well trained mercenaries of their time during the Middle Ages.

They were able to remain independent despite being around other very big countries. As a result, please explain why they have a crappy military culture? :confused:

The thread is on the worst military culture, not the worst military nation. All cultures and people mentioned were culturally German.

Well that 'culture' in aggregate threw up the worst military leaders in history. So it can't have been all that good.

It's the winning that counts. Not the marching round in spiffy boots. (Though goddamn those boots were spiffy).

Well that 'culture' in aggregate threw up the worst military leaders in history. So it can't have been all that good.

It's the winning that counts. Not the marching round in spiffy boots. (Though goddamn those boots were spiffy).

I wouldn't say the Germanic people have had the worst military leaders in history. They were pretty bad at a few points, but other leaders have failed far more spectacularly.

Well that 'culture' in aggregate threw up the worst military leaders in history. So it can't have been all that good.

It's the winning that counts. Not the marching round in spiffy boots. (Though goddamn those boots were spiffy).

They hardly had bad leadership. The German commanders during WWII were some of the best in the world. Guderian, Rommel...hell, if Hitler hadn't forced Rommel to kill himself, who knows what would have happened.

Germanic people pwned in ancient history, then it all went downhill in 1066.

They hardly had bad leadership. The German commanders during WWII were some of the best in the world. Guderian, Rommel...hell, if Hitler hadn't forced Rommel to kill himself, who knows what would have happened.

Rommel would have eventually betrayed Hitler to the allies.

Rommel would have eventually betrayed Hitler to the allies.

sigh*

Arguably the most brilliant military mind of the war, snuffed out by a madman.

sigh*

Arguably the most brilliant military mind of the war, snuffed out by a madman.

Possibly the most brilliant military mind of this century.

French Foreign Legion kicks ass and chews bubblegum, so that rules the French out.



The FFL hardly has any Frenchman in it xD




I nominate my own countries military, first time I served [conscription] the barracks were more brutal then you could imagine. Second time, it wasn't as bad, but I ended up in Grozny again >.<

13% of the population dead, entire country smashed, cities in rubble, the remnants starving to death and dependent upon the mercy of the victors for food and medical supplies.

Yah, I'd call that a spectacular loss. Beats anything the French or the Italians ever managed.

The Germans crushed the French in the Franco-Prussian war, as well as being instrumental in the downfall of Napoleon a few decades earlier. You said they'd won "like one war."

That's two. In one century. They also beat Russia in WWI

The FFL hardly has any Frenchman in it xD

Isn't that why it's called the Foreign Legion?

=D

Not germany. See previous post.

Individual bits of what became germany might have kicked ass before 1871. But Germany itself is piss poor.

And actually, even before then, that region did have a habit of being the playground of other European powers. So it's nothing stellar or anything. Not even Napoleon standard or anything.

I thought we were talking about Germans. There is a difference between "Germany" and "The Germans." Because even before German unification, the various city-states were still German. It's like saying that because they weren't unified in ancient times, the Greeks weren't Greek.

Hmm... Worst military culture. Lets think about that: Given this world and it's politics, past and present. A culture with a bad military would either have been wiped out a long time ago, or had formed in some isolated part of the world... So, I mean no disrespect when I say this, the worst military culture would be the Austalian native peoples. Honestly, with no real big wars to mention combined with the onslaught of technologicly supperior settelers; it was almost like the genocides of the Americas and their most advanced piece of weaponary was the boomarang (which is pretty cool though).

Well that 'culture' in aggregate threw up the worst military leaders in history. So it can't have been all that good.

It's the winning that counts. Not the marching round in spiffy boots. (Though goddamn those boots were spiffy).

That culture produced a few very bad leaders, and a great many really remarkable ones.

Rommel would have eventually betrayed Hitler to the allies.
A more interesting question is whether the Allies would have talked to him. If the plot had worked out in 1944, and a bunch of nationalist generals had taken over the country, Stalin would have forbidden any talking to them. Roosevelt would have agreed (as he always did) and Churchill's opinion wouldn't have mattered regardless of what it was.

It's an interesting "what-if", but in reality I don't think the Allies would have stopped the war.

They lost a little bit at a time. The borders shrank slowly and never grew, except during the tenure of their one and only really great general, Belisarius, who was humiliated and almost executed by the emperor for his trouble.

They (re)-grew drastically at least 3 times, the first with Belisarius, second under the Macedonian dyanasty, and under Kommenus which basically broke the turks in the 12th century.

Not only that, but they kept the Arabs from conquering most if not all of Europe for 1000 years while at the same time fighting several other enemies at the same time.

Tibet?

How about the Scottish? They were very militaristic but we always beat them.

How about the Scottish? They were very militaristic but we always beat them.

I'm English and I know that isn't true, if by 'we' you mean the English.

http://unknownscottishhistory.com/pdf/190battles.pdf

How about the Scottish? They were very militaristic but we always beat them.
Eh that's pure lies, Renner.

Rommel would have eventually betrayed Hitler to the allies.
So? We wouldn't have talked with him unless he agreed to an unconditional surrender.
The FFL hardly has any Frenchman in it xD
It's 20% or more Frenchmen at all times ;)

So? We wouldn't have talked with him unless he agreed to an unconditional surrender.

It's 20% or more Frenchmen at all times ;)

To my understanding the ranking officer corps consists of only French Citizens.

I'd cast my vote for the Babylonians, Historically.. how many times was the city of Babylon Captured?

When Zanzibar was mentioned I thought of Metal Gear. :confused:

I ended up in Grozny again >.<


do you mean Grozny grad?Was Volgin buried nearby?

When Zanzibar was mentioned I thought of Metal Gear. :confused:

Metal gear?!?:eek:

metal Gear?!?:eek:

!

Snaaaaaaake!

-snip-

I think some of my brain cells actually died, after reading some of your posts.

Gotta be the french. (http://lh3.ggpht.com/wyleywilkin/SAcA2RLiuyI/AAAAAAAAAG0/LS_yPrPPvFs/s400/french-surrender%2520moto.jpg)

I think some of my brain cells actually died, after reading some of your posts.

He would've. Eventually, he'd realize the allies would win, and he was already trying to get Hitler overthrown.

He would've. Eventually, he'd realize the allies would win, and he was already trying to get Hitler overthrown.

What, the Rommel thing?

No. Considering von Trescow approached him about the need to remove Hitler and Rommel refused point blank. Disobeying the orders and mutiny against a superior officer was categorically out of the question for an officer, according to Rommel.

And I meant most of this thread, not just your specific post about Rommel.

"French bashing: when you've run out of intelligent things to say - say bullshit"

Inspired by the Warrior culture thread, what is, in YOUR opinion, the WORST military culture? I nominate the French, just for the lulz.:D

Italians, hands down. The Italians are the French minus Napoleon.

Gotta be the french. (http://lh3.ggpht.com/wyleywilkin/SAcA2RLiuyI/AAAAAAAAAG0/LS_yPrPPvFs/s400/french-surrender%2520moto.jpg)

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html:D

IIRC, they just retired the F-104. Anyone who flies the deathtrap Starfighter for 40 some years is either terminally stupid or completely insane.

The politicians are terminally stupid.
Anyway, you must credit the italian pilots as the most daring and most skilled ever, just for flying the "flying coffin" for 50 years - and surviving! (well, most of them) ;)

They hardly had bad leadership. The German commanders during WWII were some of the best in the world. Guderian, Rommel...hell, if Hitler hadn't forced Rommel to kill himself, who knows what would have happened.

The very same thing (that is Germany getting pwned). With Rommel trying - again - to plot against Hitler, in order to make a separate peace with the US and UK. Anyway he would have failed.

Frankly, I don't think Rommel was such a supragenius. He was good - but it was his army at El-Alamein the one that was routed badly, while the italian corps (with inferior equipment) managed to put up a decent resistance.
Guderian was quite better than Rommel, I think: the advance through France up to Dunkerque is something that will stay on military textbooks for a long time, for sheer daring and coordination.

I nominate Switzerland. They are hiding behind the guise of neutrality because they don't want to be laughed at when they get pwned. I suppose they do have those crazy knives though.

I nominate Switzerland. They are hiding behind the guise of neutrality because they don't want to be laughed at when they get pwned.

After Napoleon, no one ever even tried to pwn Switzerland - even states who didn't give a fuck about neutrality. Belgium was neutral and Hitler had it invaded.

read wiki:Swiss_Army, and understand why.

Ehmmm, they were the last European country to abandon their colonies,...


WRONG! Zimbabwe got its independence from the U.K. in 1980.
...


So what's wrong about my statement? Britain still has colonies, so, as far as I know, Portugal still remains the last European country to abandon its colonies...

After Napoleon, no one ever even tried to pwn Switzerland - even states who didn't give a fuck about neutrality. Belgium was neutral and Hitler had it invaded.

read wiki:Swiss_Army, and understand why.

aside from the fact that the Swiss will buy the country of whoever tries to invade them than sell it off as atomic testing ground to various other countries (thus making a handsome profit). O and the fact that anyone attempting to invade Switzerland would suddenly be faced with quite a few angry countries who have all their funds Banked in Switzerland (as well as most of the worlds really high class criminals). Ya the Swiss Army is actually pretty amazing.

Inspired by the Warrior culture thread, what is, in YOUR opinion, the WORST military culture? I nominate the French, just for the lulz.:D

I agree, it has to be France.

The very same thing (that is Germany getting pwned). With Rommel trying - again - to plot against Hitler, in order to make a separate peace with the US and UK. Anyway he would have failed.
Indeed. We weren't looking for a conditional surrender from a terminally wounded general who we'd already beaten a couple of times.
Frankly, I don't think Rommel was such a supragenius. He was good - but it was his army at El-Alamein the one that was routed badly, while the italian corps (with inferior equipment) managed to put up a decent resistance.
Just remember why Rommel was sent to Africa.
Guderian was quite better than Rommel, I think: the advance through France up to Dunkerque is something that will stay on military textbooks for a long time, for sheer daring and coordination.
Agreed.

I agree, it has to be France.

Only the ignorant would say France. Britain has had about as many humiliating defeats. And of the defeats France has had, only two were especially humiliating. The Franco-Prussian war and WWII (and in the end, in the latter, they came out on top despite losing in the beginning). In WWI they held their own. And in Vietnam, they were no more humiliated than the US was. Also, I'd hardly call the Napoleonic Wars humiliating, even though France lost out in the end.

Oh, how surprising, stupid french-bashing...

I wonder, do you only have a thought about the bullshit you can throw, sometimes ?

I mean...France still own the largest territories in Europe.
The kingdom of France was created in 880, so, our country is there for more than a thousand years.
So, if we are such sucking loser, how damn could have we stayed the largest country in Europe ?
How have we get this seat at the UN security council ? Do you really think that USA and USSR give it to us by pity, or something ?

If we spoke about defeat and surrender, what shall we say about the fact that Napoleon alone crushed 4 times all the German states in a dozen years, despite the war in Spain, Italy, Egypt, add to that the war in the colonies against the richest country of this time: UK ?

Do you know that during half a millenia, every time someone fight against France, there was immediatly English money and political ( if not direct military ) support behind them ?

Do you remember that during two centuries ( from Louis XIII to Napoléon ), France fought alone against the whole Europe...and end up with more territories at the end than at the beginning ( even considering the great loss of 1815... )

Must I really add that at least the French take Moscow, doing better in our Russian shithole than the Germans, 150 years before them ?

In World War One, we lost a quarter of our male population...and still don't surrendered.
Nowadays, you could easily found rural villages wich have a hundred names on their memorial about the war, for a total population of 500 inhabitants...you couldn't understand the reddition of 1940 without thinking of this.
Could you even imagine what it looks like ?

Do you know that after having lost less than a hundred thousand soldiers, USA really thought of finding a truce with Japan ?

The Hundred Year War, Joan of Arc...so you just forget that the war was WON by the French, decades after the death of Joan ? That before this, in the middle of the war, DuGuesclin crushed the Enlish and throw them out of France...
Azincourt was clearly a great defeat, it's something who happens usually when you have chivalrous nobles with dreams of honor and glory who are throw against professional mercenaries.

The Gauls ? Okay, let's consider them " French ", the Gauls are the only peoples who burnt Rome before the collapse of the decadent Roman Empire ( Brennus, 390 BC... )...more than two centuries of warfare were needed by Rome to subjugate Gaul...the ultimate fight, against Julius Caesar, take more than a dozen years, even if HALF of the Gallic tribes were on the side of Rome...

The French Foreign Legion always conscript at least a quarter of French mens...nowadays, it's far more.

Napoléon, not a Frenchman...yeah...why does he claim to be one, so ?
Being French is some genetical thing ?
And even so, do you forget peoples like Villar ( who crushed Marlborough... ), Massena, The Great Condé, Turenne, Leclerc, Koenig, Henri IV...

I would also add that the only country who have defeated both England and the Dutch Republic on the seas was...France.

Something I never understand is this: Germany was utterly crushed in both World Wars, but considered as a shiny model of military, someone can always found an excuse for them...but on the other hand, when you speak about France, the only motivation of defeat you could find is " cowardice "...disgusting...

Let's think of it, in 1940, the best French division were trapped without fuel in Belgium, we have suffered tremendous losses, and the British were going out of the continental fightings...and then our capital fall...of course there was really bad planning by our generals, but I don't think you could say anything against the French soldiers...

What I want to point is that, when Germany surrendered in 1918, they didn't meet any of this condition.
They raised the white flag in the minute they where certain they couldn't win the war.
But they are not considered cowards...strange, isn't it ?
Be certain I am not saying that there were cowards, absolutly not, I point out the distorsion in the treatment of our both countries.

World War Two, again...the contribution of the FFL and FFI is also important, especially in 1943-45...who broke Monte Cassino ? Who liberated Paris, Toulon, Marseille... and have done most of the fighting in the country, and do most of the work against the German pockets in Bretagne ?
French soldiers.
Do you remember that Eisenhower stated that the FFI contribution was the equivalent of 15 to 20 divisions ?

Oh, and, for the end...how the USA would exist without French money, weapons, ships, instructors and soldiers ?

Well, if I have to think about " bad military culture "...none survived so long, even Tibetans were warmongers, some times ago...
In recent history, in developped countries, Italy could be the least...

On the overall, I think that the worst military culture is Japan, winning only when treason is used, losing dozens of soldiers in order to kill only one, totaly unable to replace their losses, don't even speak of the warfare of the samouraï...

Your capital didn't fall, you surrendered as always.

Tasmanians. A rather forgotten bit of genocide by us Brits.

Yeah, no-one remembers those guys, and they don't even exist anymore. Shame.

so . . .much . . .to say but no time. Ill post fully later but basically France hasn't actually won a war since the hundred years war (and I'd call that iinconclusive) DESPITE being the largest country in europe. And Massena got his ass kicked in Spain the his forces got decimated by the lines of Torra Verdes.

Your capital didn't fall, you surrendered as always.

"As always"
Could you argument, please ?

Yeah, no-one remembers those guys, and they don't even exist anymore. Shame.

Well there's no point in remembering a peoples who achieved nothing and the only reason for you to remember them is 'cause they where all killed of.

so . . .much . . .to say but no time. Ill post fully later but basically France hasn't actually won a war since the hundred years war (and I'd call that iinconclusive) DESPITE being the largest country in europe. And Massena got his ass kicked in Spain the his forces got decimated by the lines of Torra Verdes.

First, France wasn't the greatest country in Europe at the time of Henri IV.
So, you are wrong still the beginning.
Second, I don't see how the Hundred Year's War could be considered inconclusive, England loosing every foothold it has acquired in 500 years on continental Europe, to the last town and castle.

So France has not won the Crimean War, hasn't built a colonial empire, have not won the First World War and wasn't considered as a winner of the Second World War ? :]
Are you sure you want to say such bullshits ?
Ah, the beauty of biased naive informations...

I assume that you think that the whole " Revolutionnary + Napoleonic Wars " are only one war and so the great numbers of French victories doesn't count, even the War of the Fourth Coalition wich ends up with Austrian and Prussian beign forced to send troops with the Grande Armée in the Russian invasion ?
That you only count the last war, the only one who was lost by Napoléon ?
That the fact that every country in Europe, except England and Russia, surrendered not one but four or five times, in twenty years, this doesn't count also ?

So convenient...

So the fact that in 1792-95, an army of republicans volounteers won against a coalition of all the European monarchies, fought back and invaded all of them except of England, this doesn't count also ?

So before that, Louis XIII have not crushed Spain at Rocroy and make the Protestants won in the Saint Empire, Louis XIV didn't invaded the Low Countries, didn't put his own son on the throne of Spain, didn't take Franche-Comté and Lorraine ?
If I remember correctly, France and Spain didn't merge, but still it was a Bourbon in Madrid and no more an Habsburg...

So during the Seven Year's War, the Austrian low countries weren't totally invaded by French armies ?
So during the same war, 48000 colonists and less than 7000 soldiers managed to hold their own against a million of English settlers and ten times more soldiers during five years ? ( But on this case, I admit it is a defeat, I still wonder how this could be considered as infamous... )

About Massena, I never said he was invincible...just that he fought 8 years into an hostile country, against foes wich have far more mens and money, and that he was a great general.

If you are going to say that the victories gained " by team " doesn't count, that doing a war with allies is not relevant, then I think you could also say that USA, UK, Russia or Germany never won a war neither... :]

Oh, how surprising, stupid french-bashing...

I wonder, do you only have a thought about the bullshit you can throw, sometimes ?

I mean...France still own the largest territories in Europe.
The kingdom of France was created in 880, so, our country is there for more than a thousand years.
So, if we are such sucking loser, how damn could have we stayed the largest country in Europe ?
How have we get this seat at the UN security council ? Do you really think that USA and USSR give it to us by pity, or something ?

If we spoke about defeat and surrender, what shall we say about the fact that Napoleon alone crushed 4 times all the German states in a dozen years, despite the war in Spain, Italy, Egypt, add to that the war in the colonies against the richest country of this time: UK ?

Do you know that during half a millenia, every time someone fight against France, there was immediatly English money and political ( if not direct military ) support behind them ?

Do you remember that during two centuries ( from Louis XIII to Napoléon ), France fought alone against the whole Europe...and end up with more territories at the end than at the beginning ( even considering the great loss of 1815... )

Must I really add that at least the French take Moscow, doing better in our Russian shithole than the Germans, 150 years before them ?

In World War One, we lost a quarter of our male population...and still don't surrendered.
Nowadays, you could easily found rural villages wich have a hundred names on their memorial about the war, for a total population of 500 inhabitants...you couldn't understand the reddition of 1940 without thinking of this.
Could you even imagine what it looks like ?

Do you know that after having lost less than a hundred thousand soldiers, USA really thought of finding a truce with Japan ?

The Hundred Year War, Joan of Arc...so you just forget that the war was WON by the French, decades after the death of Joan ? That before this, in the middle of the war, DuGuesclin crushed the Enlish and throw them out of France...
Azincourt was clearly a great defeat, it's something who happens usually when you have chivalrous nobles with dreams of honor and glory who are throw against professional mercenaries.

The Gauls ? Okay, let's consider them " French ", the Gauls are the only peoples who burnt Rome before the collapse of the decadent Roman Empire ( Brennus, 390 BC... )...more than two centuries of warfare were needed by Rome to subjugate Gaul...the ultimate fight, against Julius Caesar, take more than a dozen years, even if HALF of the Gallic tribes were on the side of Rome...

The French Foreign Legion always conscript at least a quarter of French mens...nowadays, it's far more.

Napoléon, not a Frenchman...yeah...why does he claim to be one, so ?
Being French is some genetical thing ?
And even so, do you forget peoples like Villar ( who crushed Marlborough... ), Massena, The Great Condé, Turenne, Leclerc, Koenig, Henri IV...

I would also add that the only country who have defeated both England and the Dutch Republic on the seas was...France.

Something I never understand is this: Germany was utterly crushed in both World Wars, but considered as a shiny model of military, someone can always found an excuse for them...but on the other hand, when you speak about France, the only motivation of defeat you could find is " cowardice "...disgusting...

Let's think of it, in 1940, the best French division were trapped without fuel in Belgium, we have suffered tremendous losses, and the British were going out of the continental fightings...and then our capital fall...of course there was really bad planning by our generals, but I don't think you could say anything against the French soldiers...

What I want to point is that, when Germany surrendered in 1918, they didn't meet any of this condition.
They raised the white flag in the minute they where certain they couldn't win the war.
But they are not considered cowards...strange, isn't it ?
Be certain I am not saying that there were cowards, absolutly not, I point out the distorsion in the treatment of our both countries.

World War Two, again...the contribution of the FFL and FFI is also important, especially in 1943-45...who broke Monte Cassino ? Who liberated Paris, Toulon, Marseille... and have done most of the fighting in the country, and do most of the work against the German pockets in Bretagne ?
French soldiers.
Do you remember that Eisenhower stated that the FFI contribution was the equivalent of 15 to 20 divisions ?

Oh, and, for the end...how the USA would exist without French money, weapons, ships, instructors and soldiers ?

Well, if I have to think about " bad military culture "...none survived so long, even Tibetans were warmongers, some times ago...
In recent history, in developped countries, Italy could be the least...

On the overall, I think that the worst military culture is Japan, winning only when treason is used, losing dozens of soldiers in order to kill only one, totaly unable to replace their losses, don't even speak of the warfare of the samouraï...

A few points, The Germans in World War Two actually did far better than the French under Napolean against the Russians.
Why would you surrender in World War One when you had one hell of a lot of countries helping you? And throughout a good portion of the war was a stalemate.
You forget that the Goths burnt down Rome, and you can't call the Gauls French, Gaul encompassed places like Belgium, Netherlands also.
It took J. Caesar twelve years to batter down Gaul because Gaul wasn't unified, It started of as a series of wars fighting different Gallic tribes and expanded. Also Germanic tribes invaded and fought the Romans at that time (Take the Suebi for example). And when the Gauls sacked Rome, the western Roman Empire hardly had a army to speak of in which to defend itself, weakened by financial debt and economic collapse coupled with a series of endless wars with its enemies.

I could say something against the French soldiers of 1940, together with the British they massively outnumbered the German troops but still got rather badly whipped.
And in World War One the Germans surrendered when they where betrayed by their leaders, after a military revolution and democracy took over there leaders sold them out. Many Germany soldiers would of fought to the end if they weren't betrayed, not exactly cowards then are they? Especially in comparison to the French surrender in World War Two (It looked like France wouldn't win so France "pussied" out at the first opportunity).

You can hardly call Japan the worst military culture, because Japan wasn't unified for a very long time. And therefore the state didn't exist, but when it did it was pretty powerful (Look at there war with China or Russia for example).

A few points, The Germans in World War Two actually did far better than the French under Napolean against the Russians.

Napoleon reached Moscow. Fail.

Why would you surrender in World War One when you had one hell of a lot of countries helping you? And throughout a good portion of the war was a stalemate.

French didn't surrender when counterattack using cabs from Paris. Yet it close to be overwhelmed. And back then, it didn't have a one hell of countries supporting it.

And in World War One the Germans surrendered when they where betrayed by their leaders, after a military revolution and democracy took over there leaders sold them out. Many Germany soldiers would of fought to the end if they weren't betrayed, not exactly cowards then are they? Especially in comparison to the French surrender in World War Two (It looked like France wouldn't win so France "pussied" out at the first opportunity).

WHAT?

First, the treason myth, and sorry about the Godwin's law, was a nazi backup story already proven false. The german army was doomed. Politicians and leaders actually avoided more bloodshed.

In any case, german surrendered completely and never fought back again. The french after 1940 formed a goverment in exile, and...Have you heard of the "resistance". Jesus people, PLEASE! French people continued to wage war against their occupiers. Something that germans never did after either WWI or WWII.

A few points, The Germans in World War Two actually did far better than the French under Napolean against the Russians.
Why would you surrender in World War One when you had one hell of a lot of countries helping you? And throughout a good portion of the war was a stalemate.

World War One was a long bloody stalemate, I have say something else ?
When the German Empire fall in 1918, they have a far better position about allies, notably on the East...but on the military scale, they were loosing, and at the minute they realised this, they raise the white flag.

But no one say they were cowards.

I just ask the same perception for France.

You forget that the Goths burnt down Rome, and you can't call the Gauls French, Gaul encompassed places like Belgium, Netherlands also.
It took J. Caesar twelve years to batter down Gaul because Gaul wasn't unified, It started of as a series of wars fighting different Gallic tribes and expanded. Also Germanic tribes invaded and fought the Romans at that time (Take the Suebi for example). And when the Gauls sacked Rome, the western Roman Empire hardly had a army to speak of in which to defend itself, weakened by financial debt and economic collapse coupled with a series of endless wars with its enemies.

I think you make a great misunderstanding, there.
I have said that I don't think that Gauls could be considered Frenchs, but I answered on this point because someone raised it.

Gauls looted Rome in 390 BC, not AC...that's the Goth who have done this when there was no more Roman Legions, eight centuries after the Gauls :)

At the time of Brennus, Rome was called a Republic, not the Western Empire it would be centuries after that...

It took two centuries, because the conquest of Gaul beginned just after the Second Punic War, with the Narbonese provincia.
Much like with the Spanish peninsula, it took so long to Rome because there wasn't only one massive push but a lots of short ones.

I could say something against the French soldiers of 1940, together with the British they massively outnumbered the German troops but still got rather badly whipped.
And in World War One the Germans surrendered when they where betrayed by their leaders, after a military revolution and democracy took over there leaders sold them out. Many Germany soldiers would of fought to the end if they weren't betrayed, not exactly cowards then are they? Especially in comparison to the French surrender in World War Two (It looked like France wouldn't win so France "pussied" out at the first opportunity).

The thematic of the " backstab knife " is a pure myth.
A dangerous one.

It was the tool of the German nationalists who couldn't stand the fact they have lost the war...
Remember that the very German leader who you depict as "traitors " were in charge BEFORE, DURING and AFTER the war...for most of them.

In januar 1918, German staff count on 5,5 million soldiers, in november, they have lost more than a million of them.

And I repeat: I have never said they were cowards.
Just that, when Germany surrendered, they weren't invaded, they haven't their army destroyed, their capital wasn't into ennemy hands, and they had still their allies with them.
When France surrendered in 1940, in contrary, all of this occured.

About pussying out, in two months France lost more men than USA on the whole Pacific campaign, in four years.
In 1944, Americans were thinking os signing peace with Japan, until Leyt Gulf...just because of such loses.
And USA wasn't invaded, assulted or even endangered...

And if you can say that the Reichstag who decided to surrender was composed of traitors and cowards, why don't say the same thing of the Vichy government, and ONLY THEM, not all of France ?

You can hardly call Japan the worst military culture, because Japan wasn't unified for a very long time. And therefore the state didn't exist, but when it did it was pretty powerful (Look at there war with China or Russia for example).

Like I said: without treason, they have not done much ( the Japanese attack on Port Arthur was very close to the operation of Pearl Harbour, minus the aicraft carriers )

Aelosia...thank you...it's refreshing to hear someone knowing such basic facts.

And I repeat this for the third time: I'm not saying German were cowards.
I'm only asking for everyone to see all facts the same way, I don't know were this " French cowards " came from, if someone could help me on this subject, I would be glad.

Really.

I never figured out where this insanity come from.

During the first six months of World War One, France was utterly alone on the Wast front ( massive English forces don't came up before early 1915, UK having no compulsory military service ).
At this time: German Empire count 66 millions inhabitants, France 40...the Eastern Front being nullified by the fact that the two allies of Germany were ready to fight immediatly: Austro-Hungarian empire and to a lesser extent, Ottoman Empire, and that Russia in 1914 has no good railway system and so was very slow into massing troops.

To be honest, Nazis were prepared enough to organize a guerilla called "Wehrwolf", which was a more or less local nuisance for some time after WWII.

I don't know were this " French cowards " came from, if someone could help me on this subject, I would be glad.

Really.

I think it's mostly 1940 + French disagreeing with US over Iraq war + (possibly) Americans feeling like they saved everyone's hind parts any time they engaged in a World War. Plus, I've got the feeling that French people are linked more with things like cuisine (nomen omen), culture and the stuff rather than waging wars.

Actually, there were no Roman Legions in 390 BC, they hadn't been formed.

They also did not win the Crimean War WW1 or WW2 without help, and in WW2 they surrendered like babies.

Well you can be linked with culture and wage war ;]

No legions in 390 BC ?
Possible, even if the Roman claimed they have been formed in the 500's BC, theirs historians weren't very reliable...

For 1940 and " like babies " , already answered to this common error, your call to keep saying nonsense, it's your choice :]

One last thing came up when I thought about it...if French military sucks so bad, why does everyone still use our regimental organisation, hospital charts, ranks and decorations ?
Good night everyone...

That's not your tactics though, that's what fails you. Also, they had soldiers, but the well trained Roman army and even the concept of the legion wasn't thought up till 108 BC

Actually, there were no Roman Legions in 390 BC, they hadn't been formed.

They also did not win the Crimean War WW1 or WW2 without help, and in WW2 they surrendered like babies.

As did Belgium and the Netherlands. Britain wouldn't have won WWI or WWII without help either. Yet nobody's calling them cowards. So, basically, France has had one humiliating defeat and on the basis of that they are cowards, despite coming out on top in the long run? How stupid.

Italyyyyyyy

so . . .much . . .to say but no time. Ill post fully later but basically France hasn't actually won a war since the hundred years war
Uhu... how did it own most of Africa that we British didn't own, then, and why does it still own French Guyana, as well as some islands in the pacific?
(and I'd call that iinconclusive)
We lost tons of land, inconclusive my arse.

World War One was a long bloody stalemate, I have say something else ?
Not entirely true, the western front was a long, bloody stalemate, the African and Eastern fronts were wars of maneuver.

I believe the People's Socialist Republic of Albania (1945-1991) had the best military culture in the world. Enver Hoxha developed the entire military around the concept of an 'armed proletariat', saluting and other reactionary military aspects were abolished and replaced by a model which rejected imperialism in favor of defending independence and socialist construction in Albania.

All bad military cultures come from capitalism and the 'separation' of the military as one class is separated from another. Under bourgeois states the role of the military is imperialism, to invade less developed capitalist states and use them as a resource depot to be looted. As we all know, fascism is capitalism at the stage of impotent imperialism. War can create markets that would not otherwise exist by wrecking massive devastation on a society, which then requires reconstruction! The capitalist state can thus "liberate" the survivors, provide huge loans to that society so big corporations can begin the process of rebuilding.

In the bourgeois military, a rigid caste system prevails and forms the basis of all personal relationships. There are three levels: officers, non-commissioned officers (sergeants) and enlisted personnel. Out of the field, off-duty, none of these groups normally has any contact with the others, period.

The reason for this is that, at some point, a superior may have to order a subordinate to do something which will surely get them killed. And that order is less likely to be obeyed if the parties regard themselves as friends or equals. This is expressed in the ancient military maxim: "Familiarity Breeds Contempt."

Officers can get in trouble for socializing with NCOs or enlisted personnel off-duty. This includes nurses, who are, of course, officers. Each group has their own clubs, quarters, recreation areas etc.

Officers themselves represent a class in the military, officers in bourgeois states are always fawned upon, given better meals, preferential treatment and the like.

Unlike in socialist states the military and the working class are one, and the defense of working class rule is the role of the military. In socialist militaries a culture of equality prevails where all are equal in the peril, not like in bourgeois states where officers (usually bourgeois in civilian life) send the ground troops to die (who are usually working class in civilian life).

*Ich glaub' in Socialismus*
Uhu. What about the Russian Civil War, when the very much socialist Red Army was getting panned until they brought back Tsarist officers, saluting etc.?

Uhu. What about the Russian Civil War, when the very much socialist Red Army was getting panned until they brought back Tsarist officers, saluting etc.?
The Tsarist officers were only brought back once their bourgeois families were hostages of the socialist state, and their were merely used for their military expertise.

But as you know later on comrade Stalin waged a class war against all Tsarist and pro-Nazi elements in the military.

The Tsarist officers were only brought back once their bourgeois families were hostages of the socialist state
IIRC it was only the commissioned officers whose families were taken hostage, Tsarist NCOs were largely let off.
and their were merely used for their military expertise.
This is all you use any general for...
But as you know later on comrade Stalin waged a class war against all Tsarist and pro-Nazi elements in the military.
Which cost the Soviet Union millions of lives. Awesome.

Which cost the Soviet Union millions of lives. Awesome.
No, it meant that the army was free of treacherous white generals and officers willing to sell out the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I think Stalin should be praised for getting rid of the thousands of potential Andrey Vlasov's in the military.

No, it meant that the army was free of treacherous white generals and officers willing to sell out the dictatorship of the proletariat.
It also meant that the Russians lost the majority of their generals and 80% of their corps commanders, who were replaced by men who shouldn't have been put in charge of more than a battalion, but there we go.
I think Stalin should be praised for getting rid of the thousands of potential Andrey Vlasov's in the military.
Uhu... you're sure that it didn't create the kind of climate where people could be turned into Vlasovs?

It also meant that the Russians lost the majority of their generals and 80% of their corps commanders, who were replaced by men who shouldn't have been put in charge of more than a battalion, but there we go.
That is unfortunate, but the alternate would have been an army of Vlasovs who would have done a Yugoslavia as soon as the Germans invaded.

That is unfortunate, but the alternate would have been an army of Vlasovs who would have done a Yugoslavia as soon as the Germans invaded.
You're sure that the officers who eventually fought against Stalin wouldn't have stayed by his side had he made it clear that they were valued by him?

A clandestine anti-Communist organization in the Red Army

In general, the purges within the Red Army are presented as acts of foolish, arbitrary, blind repression; the accusations were all set-ups, diabolically prepared to ensure Stalin's personal dictatorship.

What is the truth?

A concrete and very interesting example can give us some essential aspects.

A colonel in the Soviet Army, G. A. Tokaev, defected to the British in 1948. He wrote a book called Comrade X, a real gold mine for those who want to try to understand the complexity of the struggle within the Bolshevik Party. Aeronautical engineer, Tokaev was from 1937 to 1948 the Political Secretary of the largest Party branch of the Zhukovsky Air Force Academy. He was therefore a leading cadre.

.

Tokaev, op. cit. , pp. 83--84.

When he entered the Party in 1933 at the age of 22, Tokaev was already a member of a clandestine anti-Communist organization. At the head of his organization was a leading officer of the Red Army, an influential member of the Bolshevik Party Central Committee! Tokaev's group held secret conferences, adopted resolutions and sent emissaries around the country.

Throughout the book, published in 1956, he developed the political ideas of his clandestine group. Reading the main points adopted by this clandestine anti-Communist organization is very instructive.

Tokaev first presented himself as a `revolutionary democrat and liberal'.

.

Ibid. , p. 1.

We were, he claimed, `the enemy of any man who thought to divide the world into `us' and `them', into communists and anti-communists'.

.

Ibid. , p. 5.

Tokaev's group `proclaimed the ideal of universal brotherhood' and `regarded Christianity as one of the great systems of universal human values'.

.

Ibid. , p. 220.

Tokaev's group was partisan to the bourgeois régime set up by the February Revolution. The `February Revolution represented at least a flicker of democracy ... (that) pointed to a latent belief in democracy among the common people'.

.

Ibid. , p. 75.

The exile Menshevik newspaper, Sozialistichesky Vestnik was circulated within Tokaev's group, as was the book The Dawn of the Red Terror by the Menshevik G. Aaronson .

.

Ibid. , p. 8.

Tokaev recognized the link between his anti-Communist organization and the social-democrat International. `The revolutionary democratic movement is close to the democratic socialists. I have worked in close co-operation with many convinced socialists, such as Kurt Schumacher .... Such names as Attlee, Bevin, Spaak and Blum mean something to humanity'.

.

Ibid. , p. 45.

Tokaev also fought for the `human rights' of all anti-Communists. `In our view ... there was no more urgent and important matter for the U.S.S.R. than the struggle for the human rights of the individual'.

.

Ibid. , p. 15.

Multi-partyism and the division of the U.S.S.R. into independent republics were two essential points of the conspirators' program.

Tokaev's group, the majority of whose members seem to have been nationalists from the Caucasus region, expressed his support for Yenukidze's plan, which aimed at destroying Stalinism `root and branch' and replacing Stalin's `reactionary U.S.S.R.' by a `free union of free peoples'. The country was to be divided into ten natural regions: The North Caucasian United States, The Ukraine Democratic Republic, The Moscow Democratic Republic, The Siberian Democratic Republic, etc.

.

Ibid. , p. 21.

While preparing in 1939 a plan to overthrow Stalin's government, Tokaev's group was ready to `seek outside support, particularly from the parties of the Second International .... a new Constituent Assembly would be elected and its first measure would be to terminate one Party rule'.

.

Ibid. , p. 160.

Tokaev's clandestine group was clearly engaged in a struggle to the end with the Party leadership. In the summer of 1935, `We of the opposition, whether army or civilian, fully realised that we had entered a life-or-death struggle'.

.

Ibid. , p. 17.

Finally, Tokaev considered `Britain the freest and most democratic country in the world'.

.

Ibid. , p. 189.

After World War II, `My friends and I had become great admirers of the United States'.

.

Ibid. , p. 274.

Astoundingly, this is, almost point by point, Gorbachev's program. Starting in 1985, the ideas that were being defended in 1931--1941 by clandestine anti-Communist organizations resurfaced at the head of the Party. Gorbachev denounced the division of the world between socialism and capitalism and converted himself to `universal values'. The rapprochement with social-democracy was initiated by Gorbachev in 1986. Multi-partyism became reality in the USSR in 1989. Yeltsin just reminded French Prime Minister Chirac that the February Revolution brought `democratic hope' to Russia. The transformation of the `reactionary U.S.S.R.' into a `Union of Free Republics' has been achieved.

But in 1935 when Tokaev was fighting for the program applied 50 years later by Gorbachev, he was fully conscious that he was engaged in a struggle to the end with the Bolshevik leadership.

`(I)n the summer of 1935 ... We of the opposition, whether army or civilian, fully realised that we had entered a life-or-death struggle.'

.

Ibid. , p. 17.

Who belonged to Tokaev's clandestine group?

They were mostly Red Army officers, often young officers coming out of military academies. His leader, Comrade X --- the real name is never given --- was a member of the Central Committee during the thirties and forties.

Riz, lieutenant-captain in the navy, was the head of the clandestine movement in the Black Sea flottila. Expelled from the Party four times, he was reintegrated four times.

.

Ibid. , p. 6.

Generals Osepyan, Deputy Head of the Political Administration of the Armed Forces (!), and Alksnis were among the main leaders of the clandestine organization. They were all close to General Kashirin. All three were arrested and executed during the Tukhachevsky affair.

.

Ibid. , p. 118.

A few more names. Lieutenant-Colonel Gaï, killed in 1936 in an armed confrontation with the police.

.

Ibid. , p. 22.

Colonel Kosmodemyansky, who `had made heroic but untimely attempts to shake off the Stalin oligarchy'.

.

Ibid. , p. 215.

Colonel-General Todorsky, Chief of the Zhukovsky Academy, and Smolensky, Divisional Commissar, Deputy Chief of the Academy, responsible for political affairs.

.

Ibid. , p. 28.

In Ukraine, the group supported Nikolai Generalov, whom Tokaev met in 1931 during a clandestine meeting in Moscow, and Lentzer. The two were arrested in Dniepropetrovsk in 1936.

.

Ibid. , pp. 9, 47.

Katya Okman, the daughter of an Old Bolshevik, entered into conflict with the Party at the beginning of the Revolution, and Klava Yeryomenko, Ukrainian widow of a naval aviation officer at Sebastopol, assured links throughout the country.

During the purge of the Bukharin group (`right deviationist') and that of Marshal Tukhachevsky, most of Tokaev's group was arrested and shot: `circles close to Comrade X had been almost completely wiped out. Most of them had been arrested in connection with the `Right-wing deviationists' '.

.

Ibid. , p. 84.

Our situation, wrote Tokaev, had become tragic. One of the cadres, Belinsky, remarked that we had made a mistake in believing that Stalin was an incapable who would never be able to achieve industrialization and cultural development. Riz replied that he was wrong, that it was a struggle between generations and that the after-Stalin had to be prepared.

.

Ibid. , pp. 74--75.

Despite having an anti-Communist platform, Tokaev's clandestine organization maintained close links with `reformist-communist' factions within the Party.

In June 1935, Tokaev was sent to the south. He made a few comments about Yenukidze and Sheboldayev, two `Stalinist' Bolsheviks, commonly considered as typical victims of Stalin's arbitrariness.

`One of my tasks was to try to ward off an attack against a number of Sea of Azov, Black Sea and North Caucasian opposition leaders, the chief of whom was B. P. Sheboldayev, First Secretary of the Regional Committee of the Party and a member of the Central Committee itself. Not that our movement was completely at one with the Sheboldayev--Yenukidze group, but we knew what they were doing and Comrade X considered it our revolutionary duty to help them at a critical moment .... We disagreed on details, but these were nevertheless brave and honorable men, who had many a time saved members of our group, and who had a considerable chance of success.'

.

Ibid. , p. 6.

`(In 1935), my personal contacts made it possible for me to get at certain top-secret files belonging to the Party Central Office and relating to `Abu' Yenukidze and his group. The papers would help us to find out just how much the Stalinists knew about all those working against them ....

`(Yanukdize) was a committed communist of the right-wing ....

`The open conflict between Stalin and Yenukidze really dated from the law of December 1st, 1934, which followed immediately on the assassination of Kirov.'

.

Ibid. , pp. 17--18.

`Yenukidze (tolerated) under him a handful ... of men who were technically efficient and useful to the community but who were anti-communists.'

.

Ibid. , p. 20.

Yenukidze was placed under house arrest in mid-1935. Lieutenant-Colonel Gaï, a leader of Tokaev's organization, organized his escape. At Rostov-on-Don, they held a conference with Sheboldayev, First Secretary of the Regional Committee for Sea of Azon--Black Sea, with Pivovarov, the President of the Soviet of the Region and with Larin, the Prime Minister. Then Yenukidze and Gaï continued to the south, but they were ambushed by the NKVD near Baku. Gaï shot two men, but was himself killed.

.

Ibid. , p. 22.

Tokaev's opposition group also had links with Bukharin's group (see page gif).

Tokaev claimed that his group maintained close contact with another faction at the head of the Party, that of the Chief of Security, Yagoda. `(W)e knew the power of ... NKVD bosses Yagoda or Beria ... in their roles not of servants, but of enemies of the régime'.

.

Ibid. , p. 7.

Tokaev wrote that Yagoda protected many of their men who were in danger. When Yagoda was arrested, all the links that Tokaev's group had with the leadership of state security were broken. For their clandestine movement, this was a tremendous loss.

`The NKVD now headed by Yezhov, took another step forward. The Little Politbureau had penetrated the Yenukidze--Sheboldayev and the Yagoda--Zelinsky conspiracies, and broken through the opposition's links within the central institutions of the political police'. Yagoda `was removed from the NKVD, and we lost a strong link in our opposition intelligence service'.

.

Ibid. , p. 63.

What were the intentions, the projects and the activities of Tokaev's group?

Well before 1934, wrote Tokaev, `our group had planned to assassinate Kirov and Kalinin, the President of the Soviet Union. Finally, it was another group that assassinated Kirov, a group with which we were in contact.'

.

Ibid. , p. 2.

`In 1934 there was a plot to start a revolution by arresting the whole of the Stalinist-packed 17th Congress of the Party'.

.

Ibid. , p. 37.

A comrade from the group, Klava Yeryomenko, proposed in mid-1936 to kill Stalin. She knew officers of Stalin's bodyguard. Comrade X had refused, and `pointed out that there had already been no less than fifteen attempts to assassinate Stalin, none had got near to success, each had cost many brave lives'.

.

Ibid. , pp. 48--49.

`In August, 1936 ... My own conclusion was that the time for delay was past. We must make immediate preparations for an armed uprising. I was sure then, as I am today, that if Comrade X had chosen to send out a call to arms, he would have been joined at once by many of the big men of the U.S.S.R. In 1936, Alksnis , Yegorov, Osepyan and Kashirin would have joined him'.

.

Ibid. , p. 48.

Note that all these generals were executed after the Tukhachevsky conspiracy. Tokaev thought that they had in 1936 sufficiently many men in the army to succeed in a coup d'état, which, Bukharin still being alive, would have had support from the peasantry.

One of `our pilots', recalled Tokaev, submitted to Comrade X and to Alksnis and Osepyan his plan to bomb the Lenin Mausoleum and the Politburo.

.

Ibid. , p. 34.

On November 20, 1936, in Moscow, Comrade X, during a clandestine meeting of five members, proposed to Demokratov to assassinate Yezhov during the Eighth Extraordinary Congress of the Soviets.

.

Ibid. , p. 64.

`In April (1939) we held a congress of underground oppositionist leaders to review the position at home and abroad. Apart from revolutionary democrats there were present two socialists and two Right-wing military oppositionists, one of whom called himself a popular democrat-decentralist. We passed a resolution for the first time defining Stalinism as counter-revolutionary fascism, a betrayal of the working class .... The resolution was immediately communicated to prominent personalities of both Party and Government and similar conferences were organised in other centres .... we went to assess the chances of an armed uprising against Stalin'.

.

Ibid. , p. 156.

Note that the theme `' was shared in the thirties by Soviet military conspirators, Trotskyists, social-democrats and the Western Catholic right-wing.

Soon after, Tokaev was discussing with Smolninsky, a clandestine name for a leading officer of the Leningrad district, the possibility of a attempt against Zhdanov.

.

Ibid. , pp. 156--157.

Still in 1939, on the eve of the war, there was another meeting, where the conspirators discussed the question of assassinating Stalin in the case of war. They decided it was inopportune because they no longer had enough men to run the country and because the masses would not have followed them.

.

Ibid. , p. 159--160.

When war broke out, the Party leadership proposed to Tokaev, who spoke German, to lead the partisan war behind the Nazi lines. The partisans, of course, were subject to terrible risks. At the time, Comrade X decided that Tokaev could not accept: `We were, as far as we could, to remain in the main centres, to be ready to take over power if the Stalin régime broke down'.

.

Ibid. , p. 183.

`Comrade X was convinced that it was touch and go for Stalin. The pity of it was that we could not see Hitler as the liberator. Therefore, said Comrade X, we must be prepared for Stalin's régime to collapse, but we should do nothing whatever to weaken it'. This point was discussed during a clandestine meeting on July 5, 1941.

.

Ibid. , p. 188.

After the war, in 1947, Tokaev was in charge of discussions with the German professor Tank, who specialized in aeronautics, in order to persuade him to come work in the Soviet Union. `Tank ... was indeed prepared to work on a jet fighter for the U.S.S.R.... I discussed the matter with a number of key men. We agreed that while it was wrong to assume that Soviet aircraft designers could not design a jet bomber, it was not in the interests of the country that they should .... The U.S.S.R. as we saw it was not really threatened by external enemies; therefore our own efforts must be directed towards weakening, not strengthening, the Soviet monopolistic imperialism in the hope of thus making a democratic revolution possible'.

.

Ibid. , p. 352.

Tokaev recognized here that economic sabotage was a political form of struggle for power.

These examples give an idea of the conspiratorial nature of a clandestine military group, hidden within the Bolshevik Party, whose survivors would see their `ideals' recognized with the arrival in power of Khrushchev, and implemented under Gorbachev.
Source: http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node119.html#SECTION001034500000000000000

-snip-

Its best not to argue with internet retards. You'll only give yourself a headache.

And, Andaras - I love reading your posts. They remind me that the net isn't entirely devoid of a sense of humour.

Source: http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node119.html#SECTION001034500000000000000
Sorry, but I'm just not up for playing bullshit bingo at this hour against a document whose sources are from the late 1940s in the USSR.

Here's some more for you:

The militarist and Bonapartist tendency

In a study financed by the U.S. army and conducted by the Rand Corporation, Roman Kolkowicz analyzed, from the reactionary point of view found in military security services, the relations between the Party and the Army in the Soviet Union. It is interesting to note how he supported all the tendencies towards professionalism, apolitism, militarism and privileges in the Red Army, right from the twenties. Of course, Kolkowicz attacked Stalin for having repressed the bourgeois and military tendencies.

After describing how Stalin defined the status of the army in the socialist society in the twenties, Kolkowicz wroted:

`The Red Army emerged from this process as an adjunct of the ruling Party elite; its officers were denied the full authority necessary to the practice of the military profession; they were kept in a perennial state of uncertainty about their careers; and the military community, which tends toward exclusiveness, was forcibly kept open through an elaborate system of control and indoctrination ....

`Stalin ... embarked on a massive program intended to provide the Soviet army with modern weapons, equipment, and logistics. But he remained wary of the military's tendency toward elitism and exclusiveness, a propensity that grew with its professional renascence. So overwhelming did his distrust become that, at a time of acute danger of war in Europe, Stalin struck at the military in the massive purges of 1937 ....

`Hemmed in on all sides by secret police, political organs, and Party and Komsomol organizations, the military's freedom of action was severely circumscribed.'

.

Roman Kolkowicz, The Soviet Military and the Communist Party (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1967), pp. 343--344.

Note what the U.S. army most `hates' in the Red Army: political education (`endoctrination') and political control (by political organs, Party, Komsomol and security forces). On the other hand, the U.S. army views favorably the tendencies towards autonomy and privileges for superior officers (`elitism') and militarism (`exclusivity').

The purges are analyzed by Kolkowicz as a step in the Party struggle, directed by Stalin, against the `professionalists' and Bonapartists among the superior officers. These bourgeois currents were only able to impose themselves at Stalin's death.

`(W)ith Stalin's death and the division of the Party leadership that followed, the control mechanisms were weakened, and the military's own interests and values emerged into the open. In the person of Marshal Zhukov, broad sectors of the military had their spokesman. Zhukov was able to rid the establishment of the political organs' pervasive controls; he introduced strict discipline and the separation of ranks; he demanded the rehabilitation of purged military leaders and the punishment of their tormentors.'

.

Ibid. , p. 344.

Zhukov gave Khrushchev armed support in the two coups d'état of 1953 (the Beria affair) and 1957 (the Molotov--Malenkov--Kaganovich affair).

Here's some more for you:
It's really poorly written, sorry.

It's really poorly written, sorry.

Nice excuses.

Nice excuses.

I'd blame the author for that, not Yootopia. :D

Nice excuses.
It tries to blame the West for Zhukov and Khruschev coming to power. This is just untrue.

Andaras, I don't find where you speak of this general, who exile himself in the Far East in order of not being purged...you know, the one that saved Moscow and then won some battles, like...Kursk, I think ?

And what do you have against Yugoslavia ?
Those guys managed to get rid of the Nazi Occupation by themselves !
After this, they managed to save themselves from USSR occupation and not being involved in the imperialist diplomacy of Stalin and later, Brejnev...

Fucking awesome feats, if you want my opinion...

Thus, an army of comrades without ranks and authority was never a good thing, despite one exception come to my mind: the Mencheviks anarchists in Ukrain, who wage a great war against the Western forces, the White and the Red Army, being only defeated by the treacherous manipulations and lies of Trotsky and Lenin.

Lots of countries are clearly the best militaristic culture in at least one way: by exemple, the USA built the best army on a productivist point of view ( they have always far more troops, tanks, guns, ships and planes than all their opponents ...etc... ), this is the core of US Army power: industries.

On the other hand, when we spoke on the long run, Britain and France come to mind ( during centuries, the world politic was shapped by the big fight between London and Paris... ). Spain also.
When we spoke of recent times, Germany and Russia comes up to.
When you look on very ancient times, Rome, Persians, Greeks, Turks and Mongols cames up too...

PS: about the Roman legions.
They were formalized in the way we knew commonly them by Marius in the late 2nd century BC, but the term " legio " was always used, at least since the beginning of the Republic and the Camillan reform, under the appearance of an army of citizens ranked by incomes, with seven types of soldiers, number who quickly fall to three ( Princeps, Hastati and Triarii ), who fought in manipula divisions since the third century BC and the first Punic War.

Uhu... how did it own most of Africa that we British didn't own, then, and why does it still own French Guyana, as well as some islands in the pacific?

We lost tons of land, inconclusive my arse.

It helped that a lot of Africa was not won by battles, but the European powers got together and just drew lines on a map and said you can have this and I'll have this. They also lost a ton of land, and we probably have more than them.

ITT: People who've only ever seen a war through CNN bashing countries they don't like by using anecdotal evidence and ignorance a ten-second search on wikipedia or google (Nevermind half an hour in a public library for proper sources) could relieve them from.

It helped that a lot of Africa was not won by battles
Uhu... quite substantial amounts still were.
but the European powers got together and just drew lines on a map and said you can have this and I'll have this.
Not entirely the case until the scramble for Africa was really over.
They also lost a ton of land
So did we...
and we probably have more than them.
Not really... where do we own outside of the UKoBG, and I mean own?

The Falklands and a couple of other pissant islands...

Where do the French still genuinely own?

A lot of the polynesian islands and, more importantly, French Guyana. This is quite a lot of land to own, you know, and more than we do outside of our 'home territories'.