Hi Mallery. When I said a war weary North I meant there would have been less fervour from some of the electorate if things had not gone as well in the West.if the South had realised the importance of it and allocated better resources and a better Army of Tennessee commander,
then it is possible Lincoln may not have won relection.
As for Louisiana and Tennessee voting as it did, I think the fact those states were under occupation and any or all its Southern leaning voters were under arms or trying to avoid attracting the enemy’s attention, may have helped the result. I am not sure but could a Southerner have voted how he wanted anyway? Did they have representation? Am interested to know, but cannot find any evidence of figures.
I can certianly see why Canada would be at the tops of this list, the Canadian assault on Vimy ridge is one that has certianly deserves mention, Epic, simply epic. Of course, their counter attack in Belgium at Ypres in the face of a German gas attack, cant go unmentioned, full credit to them.
I think the German Sturmabteillung, and their descendants the Stormtroopers, were some of the best formations not only in the German amry, but in the world. However, I would be remiss if I did not mention Paul Von Lettow-Vorbeck and his determined group of east african (Tanzanian) Askari schutztruppen, who waged a very spirited and determined guerilla campagin against the Allies, and is the only German commander who was never defeated in battle.
Another very impressive allies was the American 93rd division and their black troopers, the Harlem Hellfighters of 369 regiment.
And this really only scratches the surface.
It’s widely thought that Germany’s conquest of Romania is all that kept the German Army and People from complete starvation. Germany brought by train between 300 and 400 million tons of grain occupied Romania.
Germany also had a few long range U-Boats that went to the U.S to get precious supplies. In the early years of the war, the U-Boats were welcomed as heros.
Amazing research, btw… Armschwimmfahigkeitgeratsamt…
One of my favourite non-invented German words is the term that Germany used in WWI to designate tanks: Schutzengrabenvernichtungspanzerkampfwagen, or, roughly, “trench-destroying armoured fighting car.” German tanks of WWI were physically as cumbersome as that term, so in preparation for WWII Germany devised more practical tanks and a more practical designation (“Panzer”). Unfortunately for Germany, the American, British and Russian words for this type of weapon – “tank” – consists of only one syllable, whereas “Panzer” has two syllables, so the US, UK and USSR armoured forces in principle had a 50% advantage over the German armoured forces in speed of pronunciation. On the other hand, the French word “char” only consists of one syllable too, so in principle the French and German armoured forces should have fought each other to a draw in May-June 1940…so clearly this theory doesn’t hold up in reality as well as it ought to on paper.
ROFLOL :lol: :lol: :lol:
Imo, no, WW2 was all about production, tech, manpower and what allied powers you had.
While manpower won WW2 special forces played an important role. The British commando raids on Norway played a major role in Germany’s decision to build up major forces in the region. When Germany surrendered in 1945, over 400,000 German service men were stationed in Norway!
Germany should never invade us in the first place…
My point is that the “special forces” of WW2 did not play an overall important role, compared to what modern special forces can do during peace time, and against third world countries who does not have a modern army.
I would say, even if the British commandos was better than the average British soldier, I think it was the “hit and run” tactic which was very wisely used in Norway, as compared to a small number of soldiers who was better trained than the usual ones.