You're right, we shouldn't judge like that but unfortunately a lot of us do. The problem is that when the Italians did do well they were overshadowed by the other combatants, they are easily forgotten, so to speak.
Anglo-Portuguese Alliance
- Thread starter SirDraco
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
You're right, we shouldn't judge like that but unfortunately a lot of us do. The problem is that when the Italians did do well they were overshadowed by the other combatants, they are easily forgotten, so to speak.
Yes indeed. That's why we look deeper and thus rise from mere mortals to become cognizanti!
I just dont believe in utopia, i dont believe everything is fair and equal everywhere. Alot of it has to do with how we are raised and taught, our beliefs and so on. EVen things so mundane as say the boy scouts might provide a background of skill and knowledge that one nation might have over another. Why has Germany in all its different forms been considered a quality military nation going back to Napoleon and yet Italy has always failed (unless we go back to rome). Why do some nations seem to fight forever and resist occupation while some simply accept it.
In history sometimes there were peoples who liked to fight and others who didnt. Some were better at it then others. Why is Africa one of the most resource rich areas of the world still to this day mostly a third world continent so far behind the rest of the world?
Leadership is also a product of the people...
As a someone with Italian blood all i have to say is.... HAIL CAESAR!
The Germans were considered a military basket case before the rise of Prussia. The French were considered among the best before the Franco Prussian war.
To go out of left field on the idea of naturally martial peoples, In 1661, Zheng Chenggong, the Chinese admiral and Ming loyalist used his regular Chinese soldiers and his elite shock troops of freed African slave musketeers to defeat the Dutch on Taiwan.
As for Africa and such, you really need to read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" and "Why Nations Fail." The first explains why Africa was behind in history and the second explains why it remained behind in the modern era. Notably, neither books rests on the intrinsic superiority of various groups of people.
Nice job arguing against a position nobody was taking. You don't have to be utopian to see that it's ridiculous to think that German troops were always innately superior when they were outfought plenty of times. If German successes were due to inherant German qualities in '41 and '42 then German qualities must have changed a lot when they got pasted in '44, '45.
Of course the Germans in '44, '45 were at a severe disadvantage. But hey, so were the Soviets in '41. And people would realize that if our perceptions weren't so heavily influenced by a bunch of self-congratulatory memoirs of German generals who exaggerated their own successes. German troops in operationally hopeless situations like Tunisia or the Soviet siege of Sevastopol would fold like a house of cards with no regard for their supposed martial ability.
Of course the Germans in '44, '45 were at a severe disadvantage. But hey, so were the Soviets in '41. And people would realize that if our perceptions weren't so heavily influenced by a bunch of self-congratulatory memoirs of German generals who exaggerated their own successes. German troops in operationally hopeless situations like Tunisia or the Soviet siege of Sevastopol would fold like a house of cards with no regard for their supposed martial ability.
Its a complex issue and there are always many contributing factors in topics like this. I simply believe that certain people of the world have a natural affinity for certain things. It comes from generations on top of generations and the way the culture has evolved. There will always be specific cases, im talking in the overall sense. Its not really a topic for here anyway. I was just stressing my point that despite how bad the Italian High Command may have been, or the training, equipment etc... To my knowledge overall they didnt represent a quality fighting force, not much different then in WWI...
Im not talking specifically about victories or successes just a general overall representation of the fighting mans capabilities and how they conducted themselves.
Serious historians discarded that outdated notion decades ago...
It does fit with the 1940s theme of the game though XD
It does fit with the 1940s theme of the game though XD
Its sort of like when i was young and used to bet football games... You would have team A who has beaten team B 20 straight times. And yet every year people would say well both teams are different now, the past doesnt mean anything and so on. And yet team A would keep beating team B...
I agree with you 21Oliver. It's cultural and in your blood, and the game only models weapons placed on a unit with organization. The soldiers are not represented in the game. Different countries different soldiers, alot of heros and nobodys doing what the brass and politicians want. Where is Audie Murphy when you need him.
Sort of like how Germany hasn't won a war in a century and is therefore clearly not good at fighting? Or was that not your conclusion. If you are just using a subjective assessment to categorize past events you aren't actually measuring anything, you are just telling a story.
Sports is easily quantified because you have two teams on an even pitch playing to a clear point of victory. Very few things in like are like that. As a result you get useless observations that are only true until they are false.
There isn't anything in your damn blood. Thats just what the Nazis believed. Is that what you believe?
I'm not Italian, I'm American, specificaly of German-Norwegian descent. Am I a superior soldier to the average Italian then?
Time to keep calm and purify the bloodline, eh?
Such notions are atrocious, especially on a WW2 game forum. What 21 Oliver is saying is equally backwards---sorry to say it, but the notion that one can be geneticaly pre-disposed to being a soldier is contradictory to the very fabric that binds OUR (21 Oliver) country together. The sweat and blood of people of all places of origin built this country. Don't spit on their memory by ascribing to such a notion that their ethnicity is weak.
As for CULTURE, thats another falsehood. Perhaps ones cultural beliefs might encourage one to be a better soldier, but Germans and Americans and Brits and Canadians and Japanese were sinners and saints the lot of them. Culture be damned, we can all be good soldiers, or terrible ones.
Go to Italy now, talk to a soldier, and tell him that he sucks and that its an Italian thing. See how he responds, then see how he kicks your ass with his weak blood and terrible culture.
I'm not Italian, I'm American, specificaly of German-Norwegian descent. Am I a superior soldier to the average Italian then?
Time to keep calm and purify the bloodline, eh?
Such notions are atrocious, especially on a WW2 game forum. What 21 Oliver is saying is equally backwards---sorry to say it, but the notion that one can be geneticaly pre-disposed to being a soldier is contradictory to the very fabric that binds OUR (21 Oliver) country together. The sweat and blood of people of all places of origin built this country. Don't spit on their memory by ascribing to such a notion that their ethnicity is weak.
As for CULTURE, thats another falsehood. Perhaps ones cultural beliefs might encourage one to be a better soldier, but Germans and Americans and Brits and Canadians and Japanese were sinners and saints the lot of them. Culture be damned, we can all be good soldiers, or terrible ones.
Go to Italy now, talk to a soldier, and tell him that he sucks and that its an Italian thing. See how he responds, then see how he kicks your ass with his weak blood and terrible culture.
I think Oliver´s point is that a nation can fight harder than others due to cultural factors. Not racial ones.
Because if he meant racial ones, well, ehrm, hmmm....
Because if he meant racial ones, well, ehrm, hmmm....
No Kagernaut, I am not a nazi, but thanks for asking.
Sorry if I offended you or other readers. That was not my intention.
It was more like Beaga said. In my words, that people can fight harder when pushed to the limit, pressed against a wall or defending who they love.
Territorial pride 10% says it all.
Sorry if I offended you or other readers. That was not my intention.
It was more like Beaga said. In my words, that people can fight harder when pushed to the limit, pressed against a wall or defending who they love.
Territorial pride 10% says it all.
I'm all for alternate history event chains so long as the historic route is the most common.
Oh bollocks!
Mega FAIL!
I divided instead of multiplied.
Hangs head in shame
Right, 3 to 4 hours. DOH!
But that doesn’t alter the fact that they’d be operating with only a 2 knt advantage over the current and have little control over where they actually landed.
And, as you say, the remainder of my argument is sound.
To be honest, I expected more argument than this. I didn’t think it was so well known that Sealion was a bluff.
Which raises the question...
Why of why oh why did PDS make it so easy?
I mentioned towing. Of the 2,400 barges they had, 1,600 had no propulsion at all.
And surprise would have been difficult to achieve as Britain was basically waiting for them. The Royal Observer Corps was stationed all along the coast watching for aircraft. They would probably have noticed a fleet of barges. You can actually see the French coast from a lot of the British south coast.
Hitler, in his infinite wisdom, had also decided that the entire operation should be conducted in daylight. He knew that the German Army weren't particularly good sailors so needed the advantage of daylight.
Yes, of course. Mine too.
You don't think we actually use words like "quaint" and "chap" in normal conversation do you? I don't think even Aunty Liz speaks of "one" rather than "I".
Or does one?
Overall, I’m leaning towards the cultural thing here.
This is my take on the situation. Please bear with me.
Take Britain, for instance. In the three or four hundred years (or is it seven hundred years?) prior to WW II there wasn’t a year (possibly even a day) went by that we weren’t fighting or actually at war with someone. There's a great military tradition. It’s part of our culture.
The Japanese had been fighting amongst themselves, more or less continually, for a similar period. There’s another great military tradition that was even more part of their culture to the point of it being a huge part of their way of life.
France, Germany, Italy, Spain (& a few others) had fought with each other (with Britain on one side or the other) intermittently too. So, whilst there is military tradition (culture) there, none so great as Britain’s who has the unique distinction of having fought against every country or ethnic group in the world at one time or another. (Not proud of that, it's just a fact of history)
Now all this affects how your military behaves but the answer to the specific question of why the German, British, Polish, Russian (or even French) soldier was so much better than the Italian soldier is, I think, to be found elsewhere.
And it’s in one word – Motivation.
Now, I’m not suggesting that the Italians were cowards. No. Not at all. I’m suggesting that they simply didn’t want to fight, which isn’t the same thing at all. This wasn’t their war. Not in the way that it was Germany’s revolt against the humiliation of Versailles. It wasn’t their war in the way they were defending their homes against invasion. Nor was it their war in that it was their duty to fight for their Divine Emperor. (Il Duce? :rofl
No, fatso woke-up one morning & realised he would need to have spilt some blood in order to sit at the table with Hitler & not feel embarrassed. This is why Italy was at war.
So if you take away the equipment and leadership, you’re going to have an army that performs poorly. Take away the will to fight and you don’t have an army at all. Considering all three applied to Italy, the results should hardly be surprising. The vast majority of the Italian troops in North Africa weren’t captured as such. They surrendered en masse. Hell, most of them packed suitcases! They had prepared to surrender!
No motivation.
Its the result of many combined elements including training, leadership, history and culture, morale, belief in the goals, commitment, ideology, and so on....
A human being is only a human being but the effects of many elements (including but not limited to the ones above) especially not only over time but over decades or centuries has an impact. This was not meant to be a racial war but an evaluation of the facts.
I find it impossible for example to blame all the military failures of a nation on their military high command or give all the credit to another nations high command and none to their troops. The High command is an extension a part of the military. Leaders can make mistakes, but typically good armies have good troops & good leaders and bad armies had bad of both the same.
This is all along the lines with Dupuys research. He took in all the factors and weighed them and his analysis as i stated previously was something around 100 German soldiers were were 130-150 Western Allies or 3-400 Soviet Troops. Even Dunnigan, considered the father of war gaming in most of his books would rate the military effectiveness of given nations. No one ever considered that all the troops in the war were equal and just blamed the losses on the leaders...
I am a former BAsketball Coach (30 years) and i can tell you that not 100% but typically the children of athletes were more talented those whose parents were not athletic. The USA is more invested in athletics then any nation in the world and yet the best long distance runners in the world are always from Africa. Is this supposed to be just dumb luck?
By most of the accounts i have seen, heard and read, the Italians simply werent interested in being soldiers, they didnt care enough, didnt want to, didnt fight well and so on. The Germans it was just the opposite, they embraced it typically.
How do we determine the reasoning for some nations to have traditionally strong high commands (Germany, US, UK)? luck? arent they part of the military as well? Is poor training always just the teachers fault? or perhaps the student as well? Culture doesnt matter? In Japan women were getting ready to fight with brooms and yet some european nations barely had undergrounds in operation.
I think its naive and too simplistic to think that everything is equal in the world. We may want it to be.
A human being is only a human being but the effects of many elements (including but not limited to the ones above) especially not only over time but over decades or centuries has an impact. This was not meant to be a racial war but an evaluation of the facts.
I find it impossible for example to blame all the military failures of a nation on their military high command or give all the credit to another nations high command and none to their troops. The High command is an extension a part of the military. Leaders can make mistakes, but typically good armies have good troops & good leaders and bad armies had bad of both the same.
This is all along the lines with Dupuys research. He took in all the factors and weighed them and his analysis as i stated previously was something around 100 German soldiers were were 130-150 Western Allies or 3-400 Soviet Troops. Even Dunnigan, considered the father of war gaming in most of his books would rate the military effectiveness of given nations. No one ever considered that all the troops in the war were equal and just blamed the losses on the leaders...
I am a former BAsketball Coach (30 years) and i can tell you that not 100% but typically the children of athletes were more talented those whose parents were not athletic. The USA is more invested in athletics then any nation in the world and yet the best long distance runners in the world are always from Africa. Is this supposed to be just dumb luck?
By most of the accounts i have seen, heard and read, the Italians simply werent interested in being soldiers, they didnt care enough, didnt want to, didnt fight well and so on. The Germans it was just the opposite, they embraced it typically.
How do we determine the reasoning for some nations to have traditionally strong high commands (Germany, US, UK)? luck? arent they part of the military as well? Is poor training always just the teachers fault? or perhaps the student as well? Culture doesnt matter? In Japan women were getting ready to fight with brooms and yet some european nations barely had undergrounds in operation.
I think its naive and too simplistic to think that everything is equal in the world. We may want it to be.
No but the logic "I can disprove the null hypothesis in one case so I can disprove it in a different case" is not a generally accepted induction.
As a mathematician I'd very much like to see this model of Dupuys that you are so enamored with.
- Status