It often seems that when speaking about ww2, many people forgot that Germany never stand alone. Specially in the war against russians many allies of Germany made great sacrifices.
So, could you tell me why the allies of Germany are very often
underrated?


Statistics of the German allies losses on the Eastern front.

Rumania: 520.000
Hungary: 404.700
Finland: 84.000
Italy: 45.000

total: 1.053.700

Also the German 'assisting brigades' formed from the peoples of Soviet Union, like Latvian and Estonian SS divisions, Muslim divisions, 'Russian Freedom Army' etc. suffered great casualties.

The germans were the big pushers of the war, after all it seemed that the peoples of the "assiting" countries were more happy then not to see the germans pushed out of there lands

germany's allies get "dissed" because of performance-or lack of

Why did you omit Japan as a German ally?

Ah yes, Hungary helped, much to the dismay of many of it's people. That is one dark period for the people of my grandfather.

Originally posted by Quasar1011
Why did you omit Japan as a German ally?

most likely because they actually tried to up hold there end

What's the point of this really ? Should we be grateful, or should we single these countries out for extra criticism ?

And as pawpaw said, none of the allies' divisions really made a mark for itself. Spain sent volunteers and they mostly froze to death, I can't remember the Italian troops being involved in any great victory, and the Rumanians and the Hungarians were the ones who had their lines broken at Stalingrad which enabled the Russians to complete the encirclement of the 6th Army.

The Germans were fighting for global domination.

The Russians were fighting for their survival.

What were the Hungarians, Italians and Romanians
fighting for on the eastern front.

Somebody else's (Germany's) benefits!

The Germans had better equipment.

The Germans had taken advantage
of the 100,000 limit army earlier on to
thoroughly re-organise themselves.

The Germans having practiced in Poland,
Norway and France were more experienced.

So in general the German allies were less
equipped, experienced, motivated & organised.

I am aware of their "sacrifices."

I just choose to ignore them as an act of kindness so that the incredible shame that the those fools and bastards must feel doesn't have to pass down unfairly to the next generation.

You're making me reconsider this attitude.

R.III

The blasted war is over, the bloody "Axis" lost, for the better of the entire world.
There is no point in this sort of discussion.

Don't forget that some of these nations were put in very tough positions and were almost forced to join with Hitler. A nation such as Hungary was feeling the pressure from both sides and was really strongarmed into going with Nazi Germany. Trust me, the people of these nations would rather that history be banished forever, as if it never happened. Many weren't happy about it even as their nation was going with what looked like a winner at one point. No sense throwing this back in their faces over something the people had no real control over.

The Yankee. Nicely put. :sheep:

After the war had started, it seemed like no one controlled it anymore at some point.

Originally posted by The Yankee
Don't forget that some of these nations were put in very tough positions and were almost forced to join with Hitler. A nation such as Hungary was feeling the pressure from both sides and was really strongarmed into going with Nazi Germany. Trust me, the people of these nations would rather that history be banished forever, as if it never happened. Many weren't happy about it even as their nation was going with what looked like a winner at one point. No sense throwing this back in their faces over something the people had no real control over.


Crap.

For two reasons.

First, our Finnish friend here started this thread, and made similar comments in another, to suggest that allies of the axis should be "proud of their sacrifice" or words to that effect.

Second, and more important, there were a lot of countries that were under pressure. Poland could have said yes to the Danzig demand - and didn't. Greece could have made concessions to Italy - and didn't. Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Norway could have surrendered their governments and national institutions as France did: but they didn't. Yugoslavia's people actually INCREASED their exposure by overthrowing a pro-fascist regime and bringing an invasion onto their soil as a consequence.

In late 1940, Britain was weaker than it ever had been, and ever would be; but did it negotiate under "pressure" that was far stronger than, say, Finland faced? Bombing of its cities, naval blockade, thousands of its men as prisoners? Nope. Spain had ample reason to join in, but said no, not just because the opportunities weren't so obvious. The swiss were surrounded, but when confronted with stray Messerschmidts, they didn't send a note, or invite Hitler to tea; they shot the planes down.

R.III

First I would like to state that Finland was not an "ally" with Germany. They were "co-belligerents". Yes, it may sound like splitting hairs but the distinction is important because the only reason Finland joined in with Germany was to get an opportunity to reclaim lost Finnish territory. Nothing more, nothing less.

Actually, it's partly thanks to the Finns that the Germans failed to ruin Leningrad (they isolated and starved it for two years). The Russians and the allies had a transport corridor over Lake Ladoga to get some badly needed supplies into Leningrad. The Finns could have cut it off, ensuring the doom of the city but they chose not to do it. Not exactly what you would expect a loyal ally to do. :goodjob:

So yes, I think the Finns should be proud of their part in the war because they fought to protect their country. The cooperation with Germany was just a necessary evil to stand a chance against a superior foe and certainly nothing to be proud of by itself. "The enemy of my enemy", you know ;)

Tack so mycket Ingrid. Du är klok Flicka!

Only English, pls! - XIII

I think the Finns should be quite proud of what they achieved in the Winter War. And then quite ashamed to have pissed that democratic achievement away in an opportunistic alliance with "The Devil."

Originally posted by Richard III
I think the Finns should be quite proud of what they achieved in the Winter War.

i agree, they should be very proud of there stand against the ussr in 1940? or 1939 ? more than there efforts 1941-1945

Originally posted by pawpaw

i agree, they should be very proud of there stand against the ussr in 1940? or 1939 ? more than there efforts 1941-1945

This was basically what I meant to say with my first post. I think Richard is too harsch on Finland about the continuation war, though.

Finland did take back their territory, and also occupied parts of Soviet Karelia (I can't really say whether this was a good or a bad thing, although it makes sense to push your enemy away from your border). However, as I said they also refused to help the Germans in the siege of Leningrad and they also refused to send Jews to Germany, both these non-actions of course made the Germans very upset.

With this in mind, I think the continuation war together with Germany was mostly the right thing to do for Finland. If you think I'm totally wrong, feel free to provide me with facts that might convince me. I'm just a novice in these matters and may change my mind as I learn more :)

Well, the english have a standing phrase for this:
"Don't mention the war!"

Seriously, why would I personally fight a war?

Maybe I'd be willing to defend my holdings against any usurpers. But why should I go out in conquest for some foreign country or "room in the east"? Why would I care whether Lothringen was German or French? Damn it, politicians have been nurturing and exploiting nationalist pride for too long a while. Politicians want power. The more tax-payers and workers they have to their avail, the more power they got.

Ceasars and Kings and Dukes and Chancellours have been conquering and claiming territory forever. They make their people believe to be different from other people. They make people fight about territory. Just to have more tax payers, "workers" or room for expansion?

But in fact, territory belongs to the people, not to the "nation".

Being a German, I can't understand why anyone would like to put his personal interests below the interest of the state.

Live your own life, and die your own death. Or be the puppet to someone else's goals, dying a death that's not your own.

Nations are a big mistake of history. The sooner we get over with it, the better.

Germany did not stand alone!
Yeah, what a relieve. Germans were not the only ones, that were misguided.

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid


This was basically what I meant to say with my first post. I think Richard is too harsch on Finland about the continuation war, though.

Finland did take back their territory, and also occupied parts of Soviet Karelia (I can't really say whether this was a good or a bad thing, although it makes sense to push your enemy away from your border). However, as I said they also refused to help the Germans in the siege of Leningrad and they also refused to send Jews to Germany, both these non-actions of course made the Germans very upset.

With this in mind, I think the continuation war together with Germany was mostly the right thing to do for Finland. If you think I'm totally wrong, feel free to provide me with facts that might convince me. I'm just a novice in these matters and may change my mind as I learn more :)

I understand why you might want to be lenient. It's the same logic that some use to be lenient with, say, Sweden for supplying the metals needed to shoot my great uncle out of the sky, for example. But the fact is, in the end, Finland had a moral choice to make. A choice not dissimilar to the choice the Croats had, for example, for which they are rightly vilified. And Finland chose poorly. Were there reasons to make this moral mistake? Yup. Was it a mistake? Yup. Maybe I'm being too hard; I'm one of those people who thinks Churchill was a kook for wanting to invade Norway and Sweden to help Finland in late '39 and early '40. So it's not like my standards are low.

I will, however, check back on the history on this, because what I'd like to know is this: did the Finns provide Russia with an ultimatum to return the territory, for example? Under the circumstances, given the pressure Russia was under, that might have been a peaceful solution that wouldn't have helped the nazis by drawing off Russian troops. But I don't know if the Finns tried that or not (because the peaceful solution might not have produced greater gains...?).

Dunno. But I will check.

Additionally, do note that it's sort of hard to argue that the Finns didn't "help" with the siege of Leningrad; while they might not have PRESSED the seige for a variety of reasons, the fact of Finland's belligerence meant that the Russians were forced to defend more than one frontier.

R.III

Originally posted by Richard III
I think the Finns should be quite proud of what they achieved in the Winter War. And then quite ashamed to have pissed that democratic achievement away in an opportunistic alliance with "The Devil." I find it funny how we should be ashamed of having an alliance with Nazi-Germany while the allies are not ashamed at all at having an alliance with the Soviet Union!!

To claim that the side of the Soviet Union would be somehow "better" or "fighting for democracy" is ridicilious. I bet that USA and Britain did fight for democracy, but not all of the Allied countries did that. USSR was plain evil, just as Nazi-Germany was. So you really have no reason to be proud, either.

We Finns did what we had to do in order to keep democracy and freedom in our country, and that we managed to do. We would not have managed to do that if he hadn't "allied" with Germany. So I am glad that we did that. I am very glad. To claim that we had an "opportunistic alliance" with them shows that you don't know too much about what went on in Finland during those times.

Found some interesting reading about the continuation war:
http://www.wargamer.com/rtm/contwar.htm
http://www.prokarelia.net/en/?x=reform&y=5-55

I am still convinced Finland did the right thing.

Finmaster: very good point!

I think you "small ape" are right in many ways.
The times were different then. Globalization will fade nation states away as time goes by. (This propably is not good english?)
In fact, before 1800s people really didnt relate themselfs to any state or nation. Nationalism is quite new thing.

"Germany did not stand alone!"

When i wrote this I just meant that countries like romania, hungary are often forgotten, when talking about ww2.
So i was just criticizing history writing. Not praising Germanys allies. Maybe that was a bad way to put it.

Quite few know that there voolunteers from countries like Spain, Denmark and Norway also fighting against russians. Operation "Barbarossa" was often called "crusade against communism".

What's this reference to 'small ape'? Pls desist fr name-calling. This is your last warning.

Thanks - XIII

Took you guys long enough.

But:

1. By your rationale, we should be ashamed of defending Poland as well, since it was a dictatorship at the time of its invasion in 1939. But the allies chose to draw the line at Poland because the chief issue was drawing a line, period. We did not "choose" to be allied with the Soviet Union as Finland chose to assist Germany; what happened was that Hitler launched a war of aggression against a country that had a lousy regime but was inhabited by real people; and did so as the lynchpin of his plan to literally dominate the globe with a perverted regime. Finland assisted in that effort.

2. Tempered by the above, I agree that wherever our support for Russia's defence later became complicity in its expansion, we should be ashamed (e.g. Yalta). Look around western bookshelves and you will find that's a common view. In short, we remember that as a mistake (that's why there was this little cold war thing, remember?); Inhalaattori's posts here and elsewhere seem to suggest that Finland should explain its mistakes away.

3. Ingrid, reading those links now, and already I'm laughing at the pathos of this. "The Soviet Union was uncomfortable with Finnish Neutrality," and so the Russians bombed the Finns. Note this: allowing belligerent forces to launch attacks from your soil onto another country is not "neutrality," it is an act of war. Talk about rationalization...

My favorite is the "Russians might have attacked us again, so losing this war meant we retained our independence" kaka. It's almost as ridiculous as my fellow Canadians claiming we burnt the White House, or claiming that getting butchered in WWI "made us a nation."

R.III

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
Quite few know that there voolunteers from countries like Spain, Denmark and Norway also fighting against russians. Operation "Barbarossa" was often called "crusade against communism". Yes and the treasonous dogs of 'Freikorps Dänemark' were punished accordingly after the Nazi scum lost the war.

While I see Finland’s struggle against the Soviet Union as a just cause, it still saddens me that they 'sided' with the Nazi horde.

Finmaster has an excellent point. How can we judge them so harshly for siding with Germany? The allies sided with the USSR. In war, you try and win. Hell, in Finland's case, they were just trying to survive.

Anyway, back on topic, I'm sure the German allies would get more recognition if they had been a little more effective. Germany's European allies were by and large worthless to the point of being a hinderence. Not that I really blame them, I mean, how hard you have fought for the Fuhrer?

If it weren't for the Italians invading Greece, Germany probably would have beaten the Soviets that summer.

Ohh sorry. I meant to write "smalltalk". He has this "ape crazy" phrase below his name. SO I messed messed up. :)

No offense taken. :)
At least you did not refer to me as 'crazy talk'. :D

The Axis: that usually means Germany and Italy, maybe including Japan. The Allies are the US, England, France and Russian.

Both the Axis had their allies (Spain, Rumania, Hungary Finland) and the Allies had their allies. :crazyeye:

So in fact we also have to uphold the memory of all Dutch, Denmark, Canadian, Australian ... people who fought on any side.


You ask
why the allies of Germany are very often
underrated?

Underrated in what regard?

Is their suffering underrated or are their heroic deeds underrated? Do you see these countries as victims or as actors? Have these countries been forced into something? What do you think?