>ITT: Militaries that punch above their weight class
On paper, I don't see how Germany could have possibly done as well as they did in WWI and WWII.
>Had to fight the world's greatest navy
>Had to fight the world's greatest (at the time) land army
>Had to fight the world's largest army
>Had to fight the world's greatest financier and arms manufacturer
Twice they took on the other 4 great powers, and twice they almost won or at least forced them into ceding to Germany's demands. Their enemies had vast colonies and populations to draw people and resources from, and Germany still slapped them around before they were ground down to defeat.
>done as well as they did.
Well, they lost. Russia was busy rotting from the inside and the Western Front was the biggest collective loss of life from warfare at that time. The Royal Navy blockaded Germany into starvation and everyone started running out of manpower to throw into the shredder, especially France.
Pic is related
>despite the fact that england has no negatives, lol
Addendum, nobody besides the US could be called "Winners" of World War 1. The colossal amount of casualties and destruction punched everyone in the face so hard it knocked all of the Monarchial/Nationalist momentum that drove everyone eagerly into the war in the first place. Poison gas, machine guns, and widespread civilian deaths once again reminded everyone how fucking terrible war is.
It doesn't really matter since the outcome was still the same, and the consequences just rolled over into the next one.
Germany suffered from an aging Prussian leadership that combined modernized and efficient logistic systems with battleplans dating from the Franco-Prussian War. France was in no better shape, and took them longer to figure out how to maneuver in the new battlefield terrain of machineguns and artillery. Everyone had their handful of stubborn old generals that got a lot of extra unnecessary casualties, but the Germans certainly helped pioneer the concept of assault tactics.
>On paper, I don't see how Germany could have possibly done as well as they did in WWI and WWII
they were simply the only people who actually wanted to fight that war.
that's all there is to it.
That attitude was prevalent in the UK and France at the time too. You could say the Italians and Austo-Hungarians didn't have as much enthusiasm for it because they were official side-hoes of the big guys and Italy lacked any genuine military tradition of note. Austro-Hungary didn't follow the same modernization steps as Germany did at the turn of the century, and that translated to bogged down movements and extra losses in the fighting.
France, UK, and Germany were chomping at the bit to finally have their arm wrestling match, everyone had been wanting to kick something off eventually.
this image is clearly propoganda. The ottomans have so few military victories that didnt come out of massive numbers advantage, and many military defeats when they had massive numbers advantages
Their entire success is based off of two things
1. They adopted fragments of classical civilization (the parts they didnt destroy), making them inherently better than eurobarbarians
2. Bighuge and full of fanatics
To place them in a higher tier than rome is just insulting.
PS. byzantium IS rome, you have them seperate in your chart. The roman empire lasted untill the turks destroyed it after italy ruined everything.
As a proper empire i would agree with ottomans being in the high tier even though i hate them. You cant totaly hate a good empire after all, empires are neat-o. But the top tier? kek. KEK. No way no how. That image is obviously made by a turk, and everything else in the entire infographic other than the placement of turkey, exists there only to obfuscate and legitimize the claim. But fear not gentle anonymous, i have seen through this ottoman trickery, and have exposed their ill deed.
Very poor until mid 1960's, the fairly good once their economy picked back up.
Koreans didn't fight many wars historically and suffered badly from an atrophied military every single time.
I gotta say, given the state of the US by the Armistice, they didn't feel like winners either. Between the Poverty, Spanish Flu and the Mob taking over everything, 1918 was a goddamn shitty time to be alive and American in general.
Read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" the historian was alive and in Germany during the start of German aggression as an American journalist. A lot of good insight comes from this.
What the book says is that Chamberlain (UK) wanted peace at all cost, and was willing to give over Austria, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia to the Germans in order to do so. Poland, whom the French pledged an alliance with knew they were on the chopping block, Britain also promised aid should they be attacked (a paltry number compared to the French aid). But because of the hesitancy to oppose Hitler, Germany was able to capitalize on this. Hitler sent all his forces to Poland, leaving a battalion or two on the western front to defend against attack. Had French forces mobilized and invaded Germany then, history would be different. But they did not. They still remembered the first world war, the French also knew they would be the ones who had the most to lose fighting Germany (as a majority of the cost and coalition force would be French)
Politically Germany said they were stopping polish aggression and even staged a mock attack of a German outpost to backup this claim. Ultimately, people didn't want to fight Germany, and Hitler lied his ass off, causing those pacifists in power to voluntarily be blind to what was really happening.
Germany had a large population (biggest after Russia I think), one of the biggest industrial outputs on the continent & a number of excellent generals, plus in WWI they were facing:
Two empires with a large but outdated army (also a lot of idiots in charge); France and Russia
A naval power that was still trying to get rid of the old cadre of senior officers who had bought their commissions & had advanced through the ranks thanks to nepotism rather than their own merit; British Empire.
And at the final stages of the war, an economical power that, when it joined the war, had to build an army from scratch; USA
And then my entry: Finland during the Winter war.
Before 1914, Britain was the world's biggest creditor, in 1918 it had become one of the biggest debtor
France got its industrial areas, which were more or less all located in the north and east of the country, fucked into oblivion
Especially GB (along with NZ, Australia and partially Canada), Russia, France, Belgium and Germany suffered horrible losses in Manpower - a whole generation of young men was either crippled, suffered from heavy PTSD or was dead
The US were the Winner of WW1, because they were the only country without bigger losses and virtually no impact on their production capabilites. Thats it.
And to answer OP
The huns back then had a long and colorful history of being confident as fuck, combined with their patriotism (all of which is gone by now) and their natural talent for tactics, strategy and technology, they were able to punch above their weight class.
Look at WW1 russia, rotten to the core and only on paper the biggest military on the planet.
People who shit on France in WW2 really don't know how badly their country got fucked up WW1 and how lightly Germany got off.
The French economy in 1913 is estimated to be worth 9-11 billion in then dollars. The Western front was fought right over their industrial heartland, which absolutely destroyed the productivity of the region. The war reparations in the Treaty of Versailles were supposed to help French reconstruction more so than punishment of Germany. The war did that much damage to the French economy. Conversely, precisely zero of the war was fought on German soil, and Germany had zero damage to infrastructure or other capital intensive properties.
It gets better when Germany shirked out of paying war reparations by artificially wrecking their economy, but doing no permanent damage to the infrastructure. Of the 50 billion marks set out by Versailles, Germany only paid 19 or so.
The net result is that the French suffered the most infrastructure and industrial damage, Germany basically none, and the French only got 40% of the money that was supposed to help them reconstruct, Germany kept the rest.
By 1939 the French economy was only some 25% larger than their 1913 levels while the German economy was about 40% larger.
>Germany wasn't steamrolled
but it was - how else do you describe the hundred days offensive?
that they did not have to keep steamrolling is a testament to how badly they were beaten
>France, UK, and Germany were chomping at the bit to finally have their arm wrestling match
but they weren't, at least not france (and i doubt about the uk who were far from a certainty of joining in had the germans not invaded belgium but i admit i have not read as much about this issue)
france literally elected an anti-war, anti-chauvinist socialist government that actively hindered the more hawkish parts of its military, prevented mobilization, pulled troops away from the border etc. during the prewar crisis, tl;dr they did not want war
the episodes on youtube aren't sorted correctly, but the series can be downloaded here: https://thepiratebay.se/torrent/4475162/The_First_World_War_-_The_Complete_Series
Adding on to that, can someone edit it so that its a /k/ version?
+war culture, baptism by fire
+never stopped fighting
-shell of their former selves
-inept during WW2
>move turks to slav tier
>remove traumatized populace from america
Can't think of any thing else, but we can fix this lads
>world united against Britain
>didn't unite against France
Napoleonic France was literal superpower that dominated 3 Great Powers and was only stopped because the Brits kept the European powers in the game.
During the Second World War, Germany killed 5 Allied soldiers on the Western Front for every 2 men they lost. They did even better against the Russians. The Germans were pretty badass. After 1918 they were only allowed to have an army that was 1/70th the size of their WWI army. They kept one outstanding soldier out of every 70 and made that the backbone of the new army, and trained everyone to very high standards in the pre-WWII army..
>During the Second World War, Germany killed 5 Allied soldiers on the Western Front for every 2 men they lost.
This is some bullshit accounting.
I nominate Finland.
You are counting those places twice, champ. I get that you want your hero ubermensch nazis to win, but that doesn't mean Italy and NA are suddenly a separate thing from the Mediterranean.
And if you want, feel free to count the casualties from those places and see what they add up to. You are still not going to get anything close to 5:2 k/d ratio in favor of Germany.
>Hitler sent all his forces to Poland, leaving a battalion or two on the western front to defend against attack
...or 43 divisions.
Your post is sketchy as a whole, but this bit truly takes the cake.
That's hardly sporting, gov.
Poppycock! Had we done things your way we'd have missed out on all the fun, old sport.
Britain basically started it, though. And America really fucking wanted to get into the war after it started. France was king of along for the ride with Britain, and Russia was either going to invade Europe anyway or were preparing for someone to invade them at the very least.
Germany didn't want to fight WW2. At all. It wanted the territory it lost to the Treaty of Versailles, and wanted to become a major world player, because of the German's pride and Hitler's enthusiasm.
I mean, they knew it was coming and that they'd have to fight it anyway if they didn't want to be fucking bullied around anymore, but Germany didn't want to fight a world war.
Fighting the Soviet Union is a different story though desu desu
>Germany didn't want to fight WW2. At all.
this is some next-level autism.
The whole thing is basically poles dindu nuffin concocted during Nuremberg trials to justify the war. In reality poles had been agitating for war for a long time because they thought it would be an easy win with their alliance to Britain and france.
It was really only in WWII that Germany was punching above its "weight class", and it was doomed as soon as it picked on the biggest kid in the neighborhood of the Soviet Union; Hitler would have been trampled by the Soviet Union whether the USA joined the war or not.
WWI Germany, however, was exactly as good as it looked on paper, and it almost won that war on a few occasions. Germany had THE greatest land army of the time.
It took out (a, granted, rotting from the inside) Russia, had France bleeding to death, and Britain suffering more from war than it ever had before, and what it took to beat Germany in that war was consistent USA aid to the Entente & the USA sending fresh troops at the very end, Britain regaining blockade advantage with anti-sub convoys, and the Spanish Flu. It wasn't helped by its two best allies being some of the worst allies to have.
>Kept demanding territory it had lost in previous war
>then demanded territory it never had to begin with (Austria, parts of Poland that weren't a part of the Kaiserreich)
>constant Hitler preaching about "living space", which just so happened to include territory no German state throughout history had ever had
>Hitler's endless dream plans of all the territory he was going to conquer
A world war is what Hitler was after. His competent military staff most likely didn't want a world war, but Hitler and his cronies almost certainly did.
>Turks in God Tier
>China bad tier in spite of meeting God tier requirements
>Russia Decent tier in spite of meeting High tier requirements
>Israel Decent tier despite not meeting requirements
>Iran in Bad tier in spite of meeting High tier requirements
>Finland not in same category as Sweden, Denmark, and Norway
>Argentina in Decent tier
>nation/kingdom amount requirements are bullshit anyway
After the Battle of Britain they were fighting a defensive war with 6 million Italians the Allies had to get through before reaching Germany. Their military prowess is generally overstated, their successes early in the war have mainly with them being the only country actively preparing for a full scale war. Blitzkreig was an excellent tactic but resulted in Germany overextending their forces to a point where they couldn't hold all the territory they managed to get through.
>russia wasnt in world war one, you dingus
If Germany did not want to fight the war, why did it invade Poland, which both France and UK said they would defend?
If all Germany wanted was the territory lost to Versailles, why did it take over Austria, annex parts and occupy the rest of present day Czech Republic?
I fail to see how, outside the absolutely brutally swift defeat of France, Germany "punched above its weight class" so much in WW2.
Its invasion of the Soviet Union was successful at first, but let us not forget that although sizeable, the Soviet military was gutted by the purges and restructuring - and even then they were stopped in front of Moscow (mere months after the initial invasion) and defeated at Stalingrad (18 months after the invasion), either of which are pretty much the turning points of the war.
That it took another two years to beat them should not be particularly shocking, they were the ones who geared up towards the war they sparked, and thus more prepared than everyone else. As soon as their foes got their shit together, they started their own march on Berlin, and as we know there were no brakes on that particular train in neither west nor east.
This. Claiming that the USSR invasion was above its weight class is like saying you beat a champ boxer by kicking him in the teeth while he was leaning down to pull up his pants in the morning.
The only thing Germany did impressive in WWII was pulling off the attack on France, until you remember that the German army basically went around the very static and entrenched French positions. Had they been forced to tackle the Maginot line they would have been fucked and delayed for at least a year.
You think the allies would be okay with that? Like, they basically knew by about 42 or 43 they had the upper hand and would win, given time and patience. Would they accept *yet another* non-wrecking/occupying/bringing to its knees kind of peace like WW1?
The fuck? Rome should be in a Tier of it's own for being the birth place of European civilization. It's influence was felt well into the 16th century, over 1000 years after Rome burned and died.
The third Reich recognized rome as the first Reich.
As for turkey, while they had size and longevity, knock them down a category for lack of serious competition and their pitful end and incredibly negative influence into the present day. The British and ottoman empires are jointly at fault for the state of the middle East and modern islam
While that does make the statement false (state for the fact check) the holy Roman empire. Don't forget Constantinople and the reign of Charlemagne. All direct line sons of the Romans.
btw, all three involved Frenchmen who weren't happy about the Reich of their day; the first Holy Roman emperor didn't want to be an emperor, the French people of 1871 didn't like German empire founded in Versailless, and the French of interbellum period didn't want to see Germany rise again.
if we *really* start splitting hairs we can arrive to four different heirs to Roman empire: through Holy Roman empire either German empire or Austrian empire (the Habsburgs also traced their lineage back to Holy Roman empire), or through Constantinople either Bulgaria or Russian empire (the whole "Ivan III married a Byzantine princess" -thing)
Roman empire doesn't even exist anymore and got raped repeatedly from 300 AD onward. The Greece/Italy still in high tier because muh legacy.
China's military dominance in the east wasn't threatened by anyone except the mongols for 2000 years running.
Seconding this shit
The amount of lives lost per capita for most nations was fucking brutal, and was felt extremely keenly in the following years as an effective gap in the populations age appeared following WW1