Poles suffered even more. It is actually really hard to compare bravery of nations. But Soviets had advantage against Germans in everything, while Poles did not. So maybe Poles are far braver than Soviets.
- 2
- 2
What are the top badass countries of WW2?
- Thread starter sepoquro
- 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.
An invasion led by a nationalist hero (who turned Commi when he thought he had no other choice for a free Vietnam) who was fighting against a Catholic, French speaking regime that was left over from the French colonial empire who ruled a country of Buddhists as elites.
- 4
- 2
My money is on Romania, despite spent much of their limited IC on outdated tanks, they fought like bosses on the Eastern Front.
- 1
- 1
So why are you bothering to post in this thread if the purpose is to compare 'badass' levels?
Ehm, i am pointing out how difficult it is to do comparisons. I am not saying it is wrong or something.
- 1
Without going too far into details and without discrediting the invaluable and heroic soviet war effort too much, let's not pretend that the soviets were innocent in this, they commited plenty of there fair share of heinous crimes on both German citizens, the people of Eastern Europe they were supposed to be 'liberating', and indeed their own citizens. Also you cant compare France to the USSR: if the USSR were the size of France, chances are they would have fallen even quicker.
Back on topic, personally I think the Poles are somewhat neglected of their badassery, putting up one of the fiercest resistance in Europe despite being one of the most oppressed, having entire cities razed by the Nazi's for example. Their exiled armed forces were the forth largest allied force in Europe (topped only by the majors) : they played a significant role in the Battle of Britain and pretty much all other commonwealth battles, and an often overlooked but very significant role on the eastern front too. At the end of the war, they'd lost roughly a staggering 25% of their population, more than any other nation in terms of percentage. Despite being a minor nation, they contributed a huge, almost disproportionate, amount to the war effort, with a spirit to just keep on fighting, even when everything was against them.
They're pretty damn badass if you ask me, if not the most badass.
Last edited:
- 3
- 2
Poland, they fought the Germans and Russians. They never gave up and also were betrayed by basically all of their "Allies" at least once in the war.
- 2
- 1
Would you want to cross into the Alps and attack a people accustomed to defending that land for over 1000 years!?
Ehm....
Greece: 0 Tanks / WW1 Artillery most of which was captured from the Italians / 0 ww2 Airplanes + hardly any anti aircraft batteries/ 260,000 men
Italy: 163 Light Tanks/ 463 ww2 Aircraft/ 87,000 at beginning and 565,000 men by December.
So country with 0 industry/airplanes/tanks and outnumbered at least 2 to 1 ''won'' against a country which also had the element of surprise.
- 3
- 2
It's an extremely vague question (maybe that's where the interest lays?)
What is badass?
In no particular order:
Raw Power?
What is badass?
In no particular order:
Raw Power?
- USA
- USSR
- Germany
- Finland
- Norway
- Greece
- Poland
- UK
- Japan
- Germany
- UK
- India
- USA
- 7
- 2
- 1
Germany. They were helping Finns, Romanians, Hungarians, Italians all the time. Many argue that Germany lost partly becouse it had to constantly help her allies. Germany went to great extents to help her allies, Germans saved Mussolini and sent many divisions into Italy to keep their allies in the fight. And before that they had already famously sent Rommel into N-Africa with Afrika Korps. When Berlin was threatened, Hitler`s "personal bodyguards"(SS) were not with him in Berlin, becouse he had sent them to help Hungary.
Most people would keep your remaining soldiers defending capital you are in yourself. But Hitler sent them to help his allies. Critical battles in eastern front may have been lost becouse Hitler sent plenty of divisions to help Italy in theatres with no importance.
Stupid at times, but i would certainly say that Germans truly stick with their allies. Most people would have let Mussolini remain captive and defend alps of Northern Italy instead of trying to control entire Italy.
- 10
- 4
Interesting definition of "helping". If you mean "preventing them from defecting to the Allies by occupying them directly", then perhaps that's "helping".
Those SS units weren't "defending" an ally out of altruistic concern, they were enforcing Hitler's orders to see a particular operation carried through before the Soviets could interfere. We're not allowed to discuss that operation here. The Hungarians didn't want the Germans in Budapest, not that they wanted the Soviets either.
Of course, if you want to add being "bad" and "asses" at the same time, Germany might qualify.
Those SS units weren't "defending" an ally out of altruistic concern, they were enforcing Hitler's orders to see a particular operation carried through before the Soviets could interfere. We're not allowed to discuss that operation here. The Hungarians didn't want the Germans in Budapest, not that they wanted the Soviets either.
Of course, if you want to add being "bad" and "asses" at the same time, Germany might qualify.
Last edited:
- 11
- 4
1) The troops in Hungary weren't to defend her, they were stationed there to mount a huge counter offensive.
2) Ehm Italy sended more troops in the eastern front than the North African campaign which makes 0 sense but germans needed meatshields.
3) Any idea how many times Italian troops were used by the germans as a meatshield in north Africa and the Romanian troops in Crimea? countless to say the least.
4) Germany stick with their allies? Please elaborate on your point this makes 0 sense.
- 1
In fairness though, Denmark boasted, what, the equivalent of a single division? There really wasn't all that much that could have been done.
- 1
- 1
1. Counter offensive against Soviet Union. Soviet Union is invading Hungary. So is it not defending Hungary?
2 & 3. As often as SS was used to die while others would retreat. Meat shields are valid military tactic, Germans also used weaker German units as meat shields. So what is your point?
4. I don`t understand the confusion here. I already understood my point of view. Can you tell me time when Germany would have betrayed her ally?