This has already been answered, but I thought I’d go ahead and give my take as well. No, the Germans were not especially well noted for their military skill until the Franco-Prussian war. In fact, throughout the 16th and 17th centuries they were considered something of a poor joke… fractious, ill disciplined and unorganized. They were certainly not as respected as either Spain, France or even England. Sweden under Gustavus Adolphus could have beaten any of the German armies in the field (and did until his unfortunate death). They started coming into their own militarily in the 18th century with Frederick the Great fighting off… pretty much everybody but mostly the Austrians to annex Silesia… but it nearly ruined the country to do it and they were ripe for the picking by the time Napoleon came along and occupied most of Germany on his way to Russia. Prussian troops did contribute greatly to Napoleon’s eventual defeat at Waterloo, however. It wasn’t until the unification and the able leadership of Bismarck that Germany became a serious military force in Europe.
Please, point me to a documentary made in the last 10 years that referred to German soldiers as “nazis”.
Maybe. Or maybe they were just bad soldiers and not really “mensch.”
Marc
Who said they were inferior human beings? Maybe I missed something.
Marc
And maybe the words are sometimes contradictory? Depends on the cause, doesn’t it?
(edited to add) The Italians were not really into dying for a lost cause and they realized the cause, if only locally, was lost–and perhaps evil–early on. I respect the Italian commanders for that.
I believe it was in one of Ballantine’s Illustrated History Of The Violent Century books where a British pilot described encountering Italian pilots in battle. I am almost certain the encounter did not take place in the Battle of Britain. The pilot said that his Italian counterparts were extraordinary aerobatic pilots – but that they seemed baffled that a perfectly-executed maneuver did little good against the RAF.
Granted, this is a single passage by a single pilot. What I took from it was that the Italian pilots were very capable flyers – when it came to flying airshow routines. But as anyone knows, aerobatics are merely the basis of fighting in the air. One must be prepared to deviate from the script if one hopes to survive. So, again, based on this single account, it seems to me that the Italian tactics were at fault and not necessarily the pilots’ skills. FWIW I found a list of 98 WWII Italian aces.
Can’t fault them for style, though. Snazzy uniforms, fighter planes with open-air cutaways on the canopies, parachutes that hung them from the ass so they’d float down face first, shooting. Too bad they didn’t just make war movies instead of actual wars.
I won’t make an ass of myself by playing armchair general here, but I do remember reading that the Italians of WWII had as capable officers as anyone: Cardona had been as much a butcher as Haig so young Italian officers of WWI had learned the same lessons as their British counterparts. And they had good staff & tactical colleges: ironically (or maybe coincidentally - we’ve had a thread on the proper usage) the US officer in charge of operations for the invasion Sicily was Lucian K. Truscott; who had attended the cavalry school at Piave between the wars.
But what the Italians sorely lacked was a solid NCO cadre. Coincidentally (not ironically) or not, during WWI, Italy was the only Western army who allowed its officers to sumarily shoot its soldiers for showing insufficiant elan. When an army develops an infrastructure of career sergeants it doesn’t have to resort to this sort of thing.
Not even close. The Ethiopians didn’t just win a battle they drove the Italians out of their country.
Marc
As a matter of fact, I heard the term “Nazi soldiers” instead of “German soldiers” used by someone on the Discovery Channel this morning, Feb. 25. But if you think I am going to hunt down a dozen references for you and check if the documentaries were all made in the last 10 years, go take a leap. It was just an aside to my OP anyhow. If you don’t accept that people often say “Nazi soldiers” or “Nazi armies” then fine, I am delusional. Forget it.
Just one would have been nice. And to return your favor about taking a leap just imagine what I’m thinking you can go do with yourself.
I’ve heard some people say it but I don’t recall any historians using it in recent years. I was just curious if you could come up with an example, and the answer was no.
Marc
Valteron and MGibson. ratchet it back a notch before one or both of you get in trouble over a rather small point that is not even germaine to the discussion.
[ /Moderating ]
Not even German to the discussion, as it were.
MGibson, to answer your question, no one in this thread said the Italians were inferior human beings. However, here are some of the terms used: ineffective, unmotivated, soft underbelly, something of a joke, blundering. Are you aware that those terms have negative connotations?
When I was a hardcore wargamer, it was pretty much standard to hear young American wargamers mocking the Italians and making cracks about them. My peers very much equated success in war with the full measure of a man, and disrespected the Italians. There’s a faint echo of that attitude (not very strong, I admit) in this thread.
I have since grown up, and no longer regard efficiency at killing as the ability I most admire in a person or a nation. That’s what I was trying to express, not taking any specific poster to task.
Sailboat
For what it’s worth neither do I. Except when I’m playing Flames of War.
Marc