Who were the best soldier of ww2?

[Lysimachus]

How? The General gives the commands, it's up to the lower commanders to implement them. All this has proven is that it was the American soldier that achieved the feat of a 90 degrees turn, not Patton. He's nothing special at all. Just a hot-headed, stressy, anglophobic and self-serving commander.

[Delta228]

How? The General gives the commands, it's up to the lower commanders to implement them. All this has proven is that it was the American soldier that achieved the feat of a 90 degrees turn, not Patton. He's nothing special at all. Just a hot-headed, stressy, anglophobic and self-serving commander.

are you serious? you are trying to say that generals do nothing. Its not the implementation that is difficult, its the organization. Deciding who to move where, and when, with what forces, supply lines ,etc, is what a general does. Without that, an army is nothing more than a bunch of guys with guns.

Even more than that, Patton inspired the men under him. This inspiration cannot be unerestimated on the battlefield.

[Seleucid king]

History Channel? Wikipedia? Insta-fail.

I'm not giving "my" version of events. I'm trying to downplay the Americans because they get a role they don't deserve to have. The role of "we did everything, everyone else was on the sidelines"

I wasn't trying to say that, I'm just saying that America shouldn't be underestimated because we did some pretty badass .

Yeah, but again, that was one of many causes. Saying the Russians won at Stalingrad simply because they had more men, is not correct. there were many factors, including those I listed, and more like winter and dwindeling German supplies, which all conspired to make the battle a disaster for the Germans.

Yes, But I was only implying the major ones.

Seleucid King: Please do a bit more research before you make some of the claims you are making. You are entitled to an opinion, but please, please, please make sure what you are saying is historically and factually correct. I understand that a 7th grader should not be expected to read a 400 page history of the North Africa campaign, but some more in depth reading would be most helpful. I'm not trying to attack you, I am simply saying that some of the other posters in this thread think less of you because you have exaggerated some facts, and seemingly made up others. That type of stuff not only reflects upon you, but all Americans who have posted in this thread citing American military prowess.

Ok....and I didn't exactly read it....I watched it on the History channel. I watched it only because I 1. Liked WWII and 2. the show had video-game graphics.

he turned an entire army 90 degrees and marched (and fought) 100km in 3 days through the harshest winter in 50 years, over almost completely frozen roads and came out the end ready to fight, where he punched a hole right through the enemy and reinforced the defenders of Bastogne.

HOLY CRAP! I didn't see the episode where it talked about that!

[Azog 150]

So let me get this straight: there are programmes on the History Channel that claim America led D-Day as well as single-handedly took North Africa, Sicily and Italy? I mean, I knew the History channel could be biased- but if that is the sort of claims they make on the American History channel, that is the sort of propaganda I would expect to see in North Korea or Soviet Russia.

[Watchman]

I long ago got the impression the History Channel should be sued for false advertising.

[Delta228]

So let me get this straight: there are programmes on the History Channel that claim America led D-Day as well as single-handedly took North Africa, Sicily and Italy? I mean, I knew the History channel could be biased- but if that is the sort of claims they make on the American History channel, that is the sort of propaganda I would expect to see in North Korea or Soviet Russia.

Negative. You are getting the wrong impression, because people are explaining it badly. The History Chanel here has lots and lots of shows about the exploits of the Americans, simply because people like to root for the home team. For example, a show about D-Day may center on Omaha beach. The problem is, these shows are usually tactical in scope rather than strategic, which means you will only see Americans on the battlefield in the show. This leads many people, generally people who have not read a lot of history, to believe that there were no other nations involved. Using the D-Day example, people will see the Americans fighting on Omaha Beach and assume that it was mainly Americans who took part on D-Day, simply because the Canadian, British, or Franco-British beaches were never shown, but possibly mentioned.

The type of comments that prompted your reply are simply misinformed ones from people who have not studied history all that much, and are looking at a conflict through a magnifying glass rather than a....really...really big magnifying glass.

[Vapour]

QUOTE: "In the North African campaign, Popski's Private Army worked with the legendary Long Range Desert Group, which Peniakoff regarded as "the finest body of men in any army". The LRDG carried out deep penetration missions of exploration, reconnaissance and raiding. It comprised mainly of New Zealanders, with a small number of Rhodesians and Brits - men who were tough, resourceful, and skilled in navigation, mechanics, and fighting. Peniakoff formed a particularly close bond with the New Zealanders, describing them as "a superior kind of humanity". "

[Delta228]

QUOTE: "In the North African campaign, Popski's Private Army worked with the legendary Long Range Desert Group, which Peniakoff regarded as "the finest body of men in any army". The LRDG carried out deep penetration missions of exploration, reconnaissance and raiding. It comprised mainly of New Zealanders, with a small number of Rhodesians and Brits - men who were tough, resourceful, and skilled in navigation, mechanics, and fighting. Peniakoff formed a particularly close bond with the New Zealanders, describing them as "a superior kind of humanity". "

the thread is designed to generalize all the men in a nation's army, not the most elite unit in any army. Either way, the SAS (imo) takes the cake, not whatever unit that describes.

[wilpuri]

Apart from terrible frost, dense forests, lack of roads, impassable swamps and fortifactions of the Mannerheim Line.

But still they faced much greater odds.

Not to mention molotov cocktails (bottles & petrol, whose going to compete with that?), crowbars and all sorts of other up-to-date anti-tank weaponry!

The Mannerheim line was hardly anything to lift up as particularily menacing, the "myth of the Mannerheim line" is mostly an invention of foreign press sitting in hotels in Helsinki, far from the front. Its very name, "Mannherheim line" comes from the pen of those journalists. It was pitifully inadequate and after the war Soviet propaganda made exaggerated references to its size and depth in order to justify their difficulties in breaching it.

[Randarkmaan]

I long ago got the impression the History Channel should be sued for false advertising.

In my opinion, the history channel has actually managed to invent something new; sensationalist history. Used to enjoy it before, for some reason, but now I simply find it midly amusing.

Anyway, are we still discussing this?

Also, TAKE THAT GERMANS! Now they're off the 40% mark!

[Seleucid king]

@Randarkmaan:

Finally! I didn't believe in the German Military in WWII anyway. I once read in a Biography about Hitler that he DID train them very much, but ONLY allowed troops into his army that could prove Aryan and Christian ancestry back to 1750.....So not too many troops. THAT'S why they lost the war(that and some other things, for all of you people who have been slandering me) He only conquered other countries because of his Blitrzkreig tactics, probably sending all of his military in at the same time.

[Azog 150]

^^You are talking about the SS. They were just one small (But very elite) part of the massive German army

[Lysimachus]

So basically you're saying that the German army was small but still conquered all of Europe. You wonder why Germany got so many votes? That's your answer.

Actually, the Wehrmacht was huge it just got filled with lesser and lesser trained men as the war progressed because of the lack of replacements. It was a professional army but it couldn't keep replacing their losses. I'm only making a wild guess here but didn't over 1,000,000+ soldiers take part in Stalingrad? Of course, that's not all German but to be concentrated in such a small area that is immense. Then there's the fact that a standard German Infantry Division consisted of something like 12,000 men. Multiply that by perhaps 1,000 and you get 12,000,000. There you go. Of course, you have to bear in mind that German divisions tended to be understrength but even if you half that you have 6,000,000 men. The German army was not small.

[Lord de Lyonesse]

I would have to say every nation has had heroes in war, Russia had the bravest soldiers i would say we had the best pilots, even though a large group of our pilots were actually Polish.

French troops i think were the worst.. the resistance was ok still, i think not enough bk bone ¬¬

[Watchman]

It was a professional army...

Bollocks. Coscript army it was like every other true mass army in the world. Reminder: "professional soldier" = career soldier.

[Yorkshireman]

@Randarkmaan:

Finally! I didn't believe in the German Military in WWII anyway. I once read in a Biography about Hitler that he DID train them very much, but ONLY allowed troops into his army that could prove Aryan and Christian ancestry back to 1750.....So not too many troops. THAT'S why they lost the war(that and some other things, for all of you people who have been slandering me)

You don't actually believe that do you ? Over 5 million German troops died during the war.

He only conquered other countries because of his Blitrzkreig tactics, probably sending all of his military in at the same time.

Probably ?

We know exactly how many troops were in the German army during WW2 and when and where they went. Its extensively documented, you don't need to guess.

[Watchman]

Also the Blitzkrieg was a *strategy*, not a tactic. And somewhat ironically played only a fairly minor part in the Germans' critical early successes.

[Delta228]

@Randarkmaan:

Finally! I didn't believe in the German Military in WWII anyway. I once read in a Biography about Hitler that he DID train them very much, but ONLY allowed troops into his army that could prove Aryan and Christian ancestry back to 1750.....So not too many troops. THAT'S why they lost the war(that and some other things, for all of you people who have been slandering me) He only conquered other countries because of his Blitrzkreig tactics, probably sending all of his military in at the same time.

[Markas]

@Randarkmaan:

Finally! I didn't believe in the German Military in WWII anyway. I once read in a Biography about Hitler that he DID train them very much, but ONLY allowed troops into his army that could prove Aryan and Christian ancestry back to 1750.....So not too many troops. THAT'S why they lost the war(that and some other things, for all of you people who have been slandering me)

Here's some more 'slander' for you- you know approximately zero about History. So far Delta 228 is holding the line in your stead for American Historical knowledge prowess.

If by some minor miracle you are groping for the theory that one of Hitler's biggest mistakes in the war was not to take full advantage of anti-soviet sentiment in the east then award yourself a point. Many jews (thousands likely) actually fought in the wehrmacht (not as strange as you may think- out in the newly conquered territories recruitment was less stringent and records on hereditary often dependent on the anti-semitism of the area). Not 'looking' jewish was pretty much all you needed.

[UnitedIreland]

Finally! I didn't believe in the German Military in WWII anyway. I once read in a Biography about Hitler that he DID train them very much, but ONLY allowed troops into his army that could prove Aryan and Christian ancestry back to 1750.....So not too many troops. THAT'S why they lost the war(that and some other things, for all of you people who have been slandering me) He only conquered other countries because of his Blitrzkreig tactics, probably sending all of his military in at the same time.

Holy ! You just shot yourself in the foot there mate. Go and do a bit of research, wait make that alot of research.

As for who were the best soldiers of WW2, I believe it to be the Waffen SS. Their blind loyalty and dedication to Hitler makes them the best possible troops to have in a war. That and their traing makes them possibly the best overall.