I disagree regarding the lack of improvement on the German and Japanese fighting ability as the war progressed.
Despite total dominion of the air, artillery and sea and overwhelming equipment, supplies and numerical superiority in Africa, Sicily, Italy, Normandy, the eartern front, Peleliu, the Philippines in 1944, Iwojima, Courland, etc, Axis defenses did not collapse like the allied defenses did in Norway, France, Greece, the Ukraine, Singapore, the Philippines in 1941-42. Even the Italians were fighting much better under Rommel in 1943 than alone against the British in 1940-41 and the Finns, Romanians, Lithuanians and Hungarians fought better late in the war, as they gained experience against ever more powerful forces.
I also disagree regarding the statement that Germany was better armed than its opponents at the beginning. German tanks in France were inferior in quality and number, the Ju-52, Stuka and He-111 were quite obsolete and the Bf-109 becomming so (compared to the Spitfire). The allies had excellent weapons and troops (many also with WW I experience), but lousy leaders who used them ineffectively. The Germans were very successful mostly because of superior leadership. Among the few allied leaders that I admire are the Poles and Greeks, which used well small, poorly equiped armies.
I fought in that war but in your eyes war veterans are probably overrated.
War is not about guns or bombs, war is about people. War is a means to an end. It involves people and like people it cannot be stereotyped. Every conflict is different because the people and circumstances are different. War by its very nature is chaos incarnate. War is fought by people under pressure and people become very unpredictable under that pressure. People think differently, interpret orders differently, see the situation differently and are under pressure so they react differently than may be expected.
Although wars are different in respect to reasons and actions, the nature of war remains consistent and can be characterized by having the following different aspects.
Friction is what makes the seemingly easy tasks into difficult tasks. Digging a hole is usually easy and relatively stress free. Digging a hole while under fire and bombardment is not.
Uncertainty is the Fog of War. In a war zone one never knows exactly what the enemy is up to, where he is and why he is doing what he is doing. Uncertainty is about those secrets you don't know and uncertainty is not knowing exactly what your commander or subordinates are thinking or doing. It is so easy to make a mistake if you don't have all the facts and information but facts and information is frequently the last thing you have.
Fluidity is the constantly developing situation. Each situation is different and requires a different approach. Things do not just 'happen' they evolve. The enemy doesn't just attack from nowhere. They have to come from their base and they usually have a very specific goal, failing that goal they WILL try something else. The side with the best ability to adapt to the situation and shape it to their advantage has a powerful tool.
Disorder is what conflict usually becomes. The longer a battle is fought the more chaotic it will become. If a subordinate leader is killed or gets lost then the commander will have no idea what is going on with that sub unit. The longer a battle goes on the more chances are that the someone will get killed, wounded or lost. When that happens a link in the chain of information is removed.
The
Human Dimension is the clash of opposing, violent wills. It is human nature that leads us to fight. It is lies and truths of others, tied together in a tapestry of confusion, that leads people to fight and kill each other.
Violence and Danger is also the nature of war. This causes a great deal of fear among the combatants. Fear of getting killed, fear of getting friends killed, fear of killing another man. Killing is the final option. You cannot apologize to a dead man and some people find that they are unwilling to use that final option. Others realize that if they do not use that final option then someone they know and care for may die. The violence and danger affect people in many different ways and everyone is different, and until they have received the baptism of fire, unpredictable.
You sit and clinically evaluate a profession you have never been part of and also has the audacity to contradict people who have a concrete knowledge. You demean an entire nation - the United Kingdom. A proud nation who paid in blood so you could grow up in a free world.
Honor and devotion means probably not a lot to you but for some of us it is the code we live by. It is a fine to be critical but there is also something called good manners and you Sir, have failed them both.
I really wish you would think about what you are saying, when you accuse people of being incompetent you are also effectively condemning both sides, the logical conclusion of your argument that Allied leadership was incompetent is that the Axis leadership had to be even more incompetent (after all they lost to an incompetent Allied side) and in doing so you are also saying that phenomenal number of men died for no real purpose and for those of who had family fight in WW2 that is rather annoying, I can only imagine how those that were there think about your comments.
I would call that person "Narcissistic".
Although some features of narcissistic personality disorder may seem like having confidence or strong self-esteem, it's not the same. Narcissistic personality disorder crosses the border of healthy confidence and self-esteem into thinking so highly of yourself that you put yourself on a pedestal. In contrast, people who have healthy confidence and self-esteem don't value themselves more than they value others. The only thing you really can do is just not take him so seriously. Obviously he enjoys arguing, but nothing diffuses a person like this better than to treat them like the child that they are being. Don't let it annoy you, because that's exactly what he wants.
