Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

The best and the worst features of soldiers in WW2

Discussion in 'World War 2' started by PanzerMeister, Mar 24, 2005.

  1. Castelot

    Castelot New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,413
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The eldest daugther of Church
    via TanksinWW2
    I agree that 1 on 1, France would not have stood a chance against Germany in both WW1 and WW2, but then you must also know that Germany had nearly twice the population of France and a much more powerfull industrial base.

    But altough France had their share of bad military leaders, they had some of the most brilliant too.
    Nothing surprising in 1000 years of warfare....
     
  2. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    FNG wrote:

    I would be interested in the source where you obtained this "fact".


    GP wrote:

    Lol..you are incorrect in that assumption.
     
  3. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    There's a possibility, though. After all, the United States weren't exactly a power of significance when they declared independence; the colonies were thinly populated and the people who lived there favoured decentralization. To get any kind of state running the new US needed funds from abroad (which is standard for any new state in modern world history). The Dutch, in the 18th and early 19th century, were the bankers of the world and they provided money to pretty much everyone.

    ING, for one, is Dutch.
     
  4. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    I interpret his comment as referring to the present rather than to the past.
     
  5. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    What I meant was that there could be reasons why many banks in the US could still be Dutch-owned. The past resulted in the present; leads about the present are to be found in the past.
     
  6. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I have no proof of present day ownership of banks, however, for example ABN AMRO had/has a large stake in the Citibamk Corporation. Many companies are owned by much larger companies, articles I have read but cannot remember the publications lead to the conclusion that most banks in America are Dutch owned, Now who owns the Dutch banks could open a whole new argument.
     
  7. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    The information is in the public record. Of the top 50 Banks in the US not a one has a majority of stock in foreign hands.
     
  8. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,797
    Likes Received:
    28
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Dutch banks???
    Did we get off-topic again?

    British - troops fought well, but often badly-led, at the beginning were badly-equipped, and they tended to stop for a tea-break at any opportnity. :grin:
     
  9. Castelot

    Castelot New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,413
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The eldest daugther of Church
    via TanksinWW2
    [/quote]

    The brits always had a rather unspectacular way to make war.
    Their army tactics were like their rugby teams, probably best described as "slow but sure"!!
    No spectacular victories, but no terrible defeats either.

    This could be opposed to the french style of making war and playing rugby, more turned towards "élan" and inspiration.
    On a good day capable of beating anyone with ease, but on a bad day, likely to end up in a catastrophe.... :(

    (Please don't take this too seriously!!)
     
  10. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    The brits always had a rather unspectacular way to make war.
    Their army tactics were like their rugby teams, probably best described as "slow but sure"!!
    No spectacular victories, but no terrible defeats either.

    This could be opposed to the french style of making war and playing rugby, more turned towards "élan" and inspiration.
    On a good day capable of beating anyone with ease, but on a bad day, likely to end up in a catastrophe.... :(

    (Please don't take this too seriously!!)[/quote]

    WE don't take offence from your posts.... you are a good Frenchman. :lol:
     
  11. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    7
    via TanksinWW2
    This was pretty much in retaliation to Japanese atrocities. Perhaps not an excuse, but an explanation.
     
  12. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    7
    via TanksinWW2
    If you are referring to the War of 1812, take another look. First there was no Canadian nation at that time, the "kicking" was done primarliy by the British Army and Navy with some local Milita. The US aims were pretty much achieved, although the plum of adding Upper and Lower Canada to the US was not realized.

    The US did some kicking of their own at Plattsburgh and New Orleans and a few other locales. The war, and in particular the objective of Canada was not terribly unpopular in the US, to the extent that some New England states threatened succession. The US had ne real Army and it was almost impossible to get the State Militias to leave their home states. The New York Militia warched as a Bristish force defeated an American force at Niagra.
     
  13. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Don't take it to heart, it was meant lightheartedly
     
  14. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    7
    via TanksinWW2
    Uh sorry GP, it was a bad day :oops:

    There is a whole mythology here in Canada about the War of 1812 though, and an incredible amount of ignorance in the US.
     
  15. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    Indeed. There was no battle when Washington was burned it was undefended when it was briefly taken and burned. However two substantial military forces met at New Orleans and actually fought a battle.
    Though the Brits fought hard they took horrendous casulaties against a smaller force under Jackson and they were forced to withdraw and evacuate.
    I hear various claims about this war (curiously never from the English, always from Canadians) but there is no doubt that there was no definitive winner or loser...it was a draw that ended with the signing of a truce.
    One real result was the coming of age, so to speak, of the US Navy. It would be many decades before the US Navy could approach the power of the RN however the successful individual actions involving the USN's heavy frigates versus RN frigates provided a boost to the advocates of a strong Navy which had been neglected up to that time.
     
  16. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,797
    Likes Received:
    28
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    True - those American Frigates were good...
     
  17. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, they were. One of them, USS PRESIDENT, was captured by a British squadron and entered the Royal Navy. I have no idea if they copied any of her features, but if they didn't, they should have.

    BTW, in the movie "Master And Commander", the French privateer that HMS SURPRISE kept pursuing was supposedly built in America, which is why the British ship had so much trouble with her. AFAIK, however, no French warship, privateer or navy, was ever built in the United States in the Napoleonic era.
     
  18. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,797
    Likes Received:
    28
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Regarding my earlier comment about British soldiers & tea...
    I should point out that the image of Tommies constantly stopping mid-battle to brew up is incorrect.
    The image arose in the media as a propaganda item when Britain was not doing too well, to show how unconcerned the average Tommy was by 'the Hun'.
    Obviously, the army embraced the joke. :D
     
  19. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    To unnerve just one myth about British tea brakes, the ground segment of Operation Market-Garden (or Operation Garden) was held up most of the time not by the Guards Armoured taking a break to brew up, but by the Germans managing to put up a coherent defence force every time the previous one was broken through by 30th Corps. This cost the Allies several days, and it was most definitely beyond the British' control that the Airborne divisions took such casualties.
     
  20. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Which proves that putting your entire attack force on one road is idiotic.
     

Share This Page