Best Soldiers at WW2?

Which country had the most skilled soldiers in the WW2?Many times i have heard thet Finnish troops were the best.Afterall they crushed the superior russian forces at the Winter war.

This is a question which can never be answered.

For one thing, the answer could be very different if one compares the performance of entire national armies, or performance of select units within each army. Even armies with overall poor performance had some elite forces that displayed great ability.

It is possible that the very best soldiers of the war were the Gurkha soldiers in British service. But they were a very small force.

For another, the question of equipment and supply must be factored in. American troops won many decisive victories, 'crushing' all opposing forces - but some commentators say this was only because US forces had more guns and tanks and especially ammunition which they used lavishly.

Personally I think this is a great way to make war - rather than displaying great bravery, getting wounded and killed, etc. To quote Gen. Patton, 'You win a war by making the _other_ poor dumb bastard die for _his_ country.'

Also, what kind of 'skill' are we discussing? Skill with infantry weapons, in small unit action? Or skill with complex advanced weapons systems, such as airplanes, tanks, artillery directed by radio links? The skill of building roads and bridges and airfields in difficult places is important, as is the skill of moving really huge amounts of supplies to the front.

Finnish forces inflicted some severe reverses on Soviet troops during the Winter War, but it would be just as true to say 'Soviet troops 'crushed' the Finnish army.'' After all, it was Soviet troops which advanced into Finland, not vice versa. Finnish defenders around Viipuri were destroyed by the Soviets, and the Finnish government made peace on terms imposed by the USSR.

Finland achieved a 'moral victory' by holding off the much larger USSR for several months, and by preserving its independence, but in absolute terms the USSR was the

Man for man, across the board, almost certainly the Germans. Better trained, better led, better disciplined, (etc., etc., etc.,) then almost any other national force. Especially indicative of this, IMO, is how they were consistantly able to cobble together credible 'ad hoc' units from the wreckage of defeats like the destruction of Army Group Center and the Mortain/Falise debacle.

Also high on my list would be the six USMC divisions fielded by the US in the Pacific.

Brad Meyer 'It is history that teaches us to hope'

O.k., to argue in a short and simplifying way: I think it is hard to say which country had the most skilled soldiers in WW II. Also it depends on the different types: do you mean infantry, air force, tank crews? The 'normal' soldier or the leaders? Most it is said that the German soldiers were the best - they had much lower (in quantity) equipment then their enemies and not such much men; inspite they were still able to defend themselves over years. They were also able to expand inspite of their handicaps (Northern Africa, for exampel). The Germans may also have had the best tactical leaders in WW II, but they had no skillful strategic leader. Anyway, it is a hard question because the Polands like the Finns for exampel fought very brave. The Italian troops fought often also brave but they had poor equipment and a bad leadership (the grandfather of a friend of mine occasionally said 'if the Italians would have fought for the Russians, we would have won the war' ;o) ). The US-troops were very skillful in reaching their goals without many deads on their side. In the body count ranking on the European theatre of war the Germans are leading; on one dead soldier of them come the most dead armed enemies - but you have to remember the mass of people they killed after imprisoning them and the noncombatans they shot and declared afterwards that they were combatants. So I would say that it depends on your point of view, the question is of emotional nature like the debate what was the better fighting airplane: Spitfire/Hurricane or Messerschmidt/Fokke Wulf.

Regards,

Frank Plamboeck

The Red Army in the Finland war was hardly a top drawer military organization. Man for man: German and British.

The same can be said of the BEF in 1940.

I would choose the Soviets. They fought back from the brink of annihilation to liberate their country and all of Eastern Europe and then went on to occupy the capital of the country that tried to destroy them.

Rommel is reported to have said the Maori Battalion, from New Zealand, was the strongest fighting force that he ever encountered.

Of course Finns were the best. Hitler was so impressed that he named them honorary Aryans. Americans started to talk about the Miracle of the Winter War. Stalin couldn't believe what was happening. Superiority can be verified with statistics, too. Biased, me!

The entire argument seem an exercise in displaying the ridiculousness of personal opnion asan objective (or even subjective) method of evaluation.

First, and the height of sillinessness, is the apples and oranges nature of the debate....WTF are we comparing, single soldiers, mano a mano, as if they were gladiators on the floor of an ampitheater, Thracian Hoplite against Balearic Slinger?

Horse manure! Obviously comparing single soldiers is meaningless, for arms aside, my Goliath will usually whupup on your David. Add arms, and the stakes change, as my David's 8 pound brass Napoleon may not give your 18' pike an opportunity to get far up the hill much less engage.

Then we've village ijits dealing a few more cards, putting their Maori battalion up gainst someone's Guards Armored Division. Again, such comparisons are meaningless. Maoris and Gurkhas have noble and indelible records of bravery and basic manual skills with personal weapons, but the lists of Gurkha fighter aces is as short as that of Maori destroyer skippers.

In a most basic sense, what been said so far is a classic (and best suited for a Monte Python skit) argument ove comparable phallus size, the height of juvenile juvenalia and adolescent rooster fighting.

Besides, everyone knows that in all aspects, from fleet commanders (Nimitz) to leaders of multiple armies (Eisenhower) to TBF pilots overcoming early setbacks (Bush '41' to scaling unassailable heights (Rudder, Pont du Hoc), being born in Texas or living there before or after is all that really matters.