Germany having shit allies became quite the widespread meme in Pop-History Circles. Which deserve the reputation? Which don't get enough flak?My list is as follows:Overrated:1st Japan WW2: The United States only had to spend a small portion of their Army to the Island Hopping campaigns despite being well prepared and fully dug in. And not only against the United States, they also struggled against China and only archieved major successds on open field where they were able to leverage air superiority and tanks against an underequipped and undertrained enemy.2nd Finnland WW2: Despite the Red Army suffering terrible loses to the Germans, the Finnish only made minor territorial gains while tying a mere token force of the Red Army to their front. If not for their perfomance during the Winter War (which is mostly owed to Soviet Incompetence) granting them the mythical status of super soldiers they perhaps would barely ever get mentioned at all.3rd Bulgaria WW1: Ususlly never mentioned, but that alone is reason enough to call them overrated while the other Central Powers are subject to constant ridicule.Underrated: 1st Austria-Hungary: A major ally on the Eastern Front and despite early setbacks and staggering loses they still fought until the end. While fighting a War against Russia, Austria-Hungary also kept the Italians contained and when Russia got knocked out even managed to push into the Heartland despite the Italians having the territorial advantage in the mountain.2nd Italy WW2: While somewhat incompetent, their Navy and Air Force still made the African Front possible. And during the Battle of Italy, the Allied forces were grinded down despite being underequipped and understaffed.3rd Ottoman Empire: Usually barely mentioned despite facing 4 Million Allied Soldiers in total.
>>18291285
>>18291299Excuse me?
>>18291285>JapanI disagree. Japan being able to fight China and take over British, Dutch, French colonies and the Philippines was a massive problem for the allies. It’s surprising but makes sense how much land Japan got in WW2. They put their effort in. The allies were able to deal with Japan so easily because all of their other allies were gone. Japan was one of Germany’s only really good allies.>FinlandYeah, I guess I agree with that. Finland didn’t change much.>Bulgaria WW1I guess I agree, Bulgaria was just average. I don’t think people see them as that good. They were just opportunistic.>Austria-HungaryNationalism really broke Austria Hungary down. Franz Ferdinand dying was one of the worst things that could have happened. Austria Hungary was not ready for a war. Thankfully for Austria Hungary, Italy, and Russia weren’t ready for war either. >ItalyI agree. Italy’s navy and air force did help a lot. Italy wasn’t a complete disaster to the Germans.>Ottoman EmpireAgree, Ottomans could have actually been better, but Enver Pasha basically killed the entire army in the Caucasus and the Ottomans not being able to stop the Arab revolt made things way worse for them. Loved the list, though! Maybe you could do something similar for the Peloponnesian War or the Napoleonic Wars.
>>18291285The Italian army has done badly in pretty much every major war in Europe. In some respects they did perform better in WWI than they did in WWII, mainly because they barely left Italy. Supplying a modern army in Africa or Albania turned out to be a logistical shit show. I'm talking about major supply issues like ten of thousands of infantry troops not having boots and milling around a port city in Italy waiting for deployment.
>>18291364>Maybe you could do something similar for the Peloponnesian War or the Napoleonic Wars.I'm not well read in the Napoleonix wars or Ancient Greece, but maybe I'll make a similar post about some Roman Wars, I rediscovered a nice book giving quite a nice overview over the most significant wars and its adversaries the Roman Empire fought in and against.
>>18291285You are right about everything except Finland. There was total of about 4 million Finns at the time. Imagine if there were 40 million of them ??
>>18291374>every major war in EuropeSo WW1 and WW2?In WW1 they did fine against Austria-Hungary. WW2 Italy is the history of a nation trying to become something they couldn't, even just from a resource point of view. The fact that Hitler took so long to realize shows just how much of an ideological retard he was. And even then they did keep busy a significant portion of allied troops which counts for something.>>18291285Good list. Regarding Austria-Hungary though, Caporetto and what came after was entirely because of German intervention. Other than that the Austrians did fight to the teeth, that is true.
>>18291285>2nd Italy WW2: While somewhat incompetent,
>>18291285Italy could have been a major force in the Mediterranean if they had not rejected the concept of aircraft carriers and naval aviation in the 1930s. They went all in on the battleship meme.
>>18291526What's the point of carriers when you have Dodecanese, Sicily and Sardinia?The British didn't use that many carriers in the med either.
>>18291285Ask yourself this, was Germany better off with these countries as allies? For your other examples I would say yes, but for Italy it is a resounding no.Because of them there were 3 more fronts that sucked up German men and resources, North Africa, the Balkans, and Italy, and it was only in North Africa that the Italians did the majority of the fighting themselves, and what they pitched in against the USSR for a year and a half was not nearly enough to make up for that. The Balkans was especially unneccessary since the majority of the fighting was against local partisans, and while the other two were good distractions for the western allies, Germany ultimately needed their men more.
>>18291752They didn't use naval aviation either. They were retarded.(Although tbf naval aviation wasn't really proven as a concept until the Japanese showed it in action)
>>18291855You mean the Italians? They widely used their 3 engine bombers(sm79?) as torpedo carriers iirc.
>>18292087https://naval-encyclopedia.com/naval-aviation/ww2/italian-ww2-air-arm.phpCheck this article explaining it. Their naval aviation was neglected, the Regia Marina never developed a proper, fully fledged fleet air arm, their seaplanes were two generations behind what the allies were fielding. Almost obsolete biplanes. They also did not adopt and make use of radar as extensively as they should and of course dismissed the idea of aircraft carriers entirely.Only in late 1941 they hastily converted a transatlantic transport into an aircraft carrier and by the time they were developing proper seaplanes (1943) the surrender to the Allies came.
>>18291285I was going to answer your question until I read your list, now I am far too focused on your reasoning. Also the fact you are mixing together both world wars in your post.>Austria-HungaryAlmost all of their war influencing successes are because of German intervention. They also only "fought until the end" because the Germans forced them to after the Sixtus affair, they absolutely were not doing it out of their own will. As for having the "Italians contained" that front was only activated because of atrocious Habsburg foreign policy, though that might be an unfair expectation for them to suddenly become competent at that considering the previous hundred years of floundering.>Ottoman EmpireTo an extent you are not wrong, having the focus of the Entente shift to the middle east certainly helped the Central Powers but really that is where their "positive contribution" ends. They failed in the goals in the Caucuses, they failed in their goals in Egypt and they failed in their goals in the Balkans. Simply put, it was good for Germany to have them in the war but it was massively idiotic for the Turks themselves to get involved.>BulgariaI'd argue that is unfair given their size and recent fatigue, despite being smaller then the Turks and Austrians they actually achieved their goals and were decisive against Serbia and instrumental in holding off the Entente incursions from Salonika.
>>18292857>They also only "fought until the end" because the Germans forced them to after the Sixtus affair, they absolutely were not doing it out of their own will.Germany wasn't even aware of the Sixtus affair until long after the negotiations had failed, and they failed because Italy demanded far more than Austria-Hungary was willing to give up.In other words, Austria-Hungary chose war out of their free will over peace on unfavourable terms.>As for having the "Italians contained" that front was only activated because of atrocious Habsburg foreign policyThe Austro-Italian negotiations of territorial compensation to atleast keep Italy neutral failed for the same reason the Sixtus negotiations failed, Italy wanted too much. Triest especially was what Italy coveted, and what Austria-Hungary under no circumstances whatsoever wanted to give up, which was perfectly reasonable given the vital economic importance the port had to the Empire.
>>18293890You are correct that both the negotiations failed due to Italy but that does not change the underlying fact that Austria-Hungary WAS seeking a way out of the war prematurely and without informing their allies and Austria-Hungary DID fail to attain at least Italian neutrality. The conditions of both these issues are of course up to discussion but you have to discuss them with the principle of the question in the OP.>Austria-Hungary chose war out of their free willNo they did not, the Spa Conference settled any attempts at Austro-Hungarian decision making once and for all. They became an underling both through documents and a literal military presence in their high command. There were of course Generals in the Empire who supported continuing the war but they were not the decision makers or the policy creators, the leadership of the Habsburg Empire was forced to form ranks with the Central Powers in 1918.>Austria-Hungary under no circumstances whatsoever wanted to give up, which was perfectly reasonable given the vital economic importance the port had to the EmpireAgain, just to clarify, the deal being so bad that the Austrians spat it out by no means washes away the fact that they sought one out without informing their allies.
>>18293925>The conditions of both these issues are of course up to discussion but you have to discuss them with the principle of the question in the OP.Okay, peace talks that didn't lead anywhere did not impact their usefulness as an ally at all and you can't reasonably expect any ally to bend over backwards just to keep a potential enemy neutral, an enemy that was mostly only of concern to the Austrians themselves.>the Spa Conference settled any attempts at Austro-Hungarian decision making once and for all. They became an underling both through documentsThe Spa Conference of May 1918 was at best a preliminary agreement and from what I can find it was only about a customs union and that they were to be more closely aligned in foreign policy, not about relinquishing Austrian sovereignty to Germany altogether. The details were to be determined in the Salzburg negotiations so that an actual binding treaty could be signed, but after 4 months the talks ended in October when Austria-Hungary was collapsing without having reached an agreement. So, it wasn't anywhere near as bad as you make it out to be and it was never even implemented.>a literal military presence in their high commandSending advisors, liaisons, and attachés to your allies is standard practice, as is subordinating some of your units under allied command.>the deal being so bad that the Austrians spat it out by no means washes away the fact that they sought one outSure, but it DOES mean that they voluntarily chose war over a viable, but unacceptable, peace.
>>18294202>Okay, peace talks that didn't lead anywhere did not impact their usefulness as an ally at allIt made the OHL now have to factor in not only the troops they have assigned to Austrian fronts, which the Austrians were failing to achieve success on by themselves, but also that they now have to concern themselves with court politics and an unreliable Kaiser Karl behind their backs. This of course did not have enough time to ruminate due to the ending of the war in sight however you have to look at how the men themselves thought at the time rather then what we know now. Were you Ludendorff or Hindenburg you do not know whether or not Vienna will try again, it was entirely possible through a hypothetical delaying of the war's end that Mackensen and other theatre commanders would have had to pull an early Operation Alarich as the Habsburgs collapsed or sought another end to the war. The Germans who considered themselves "shackled to a corpse" now considered themselves shackled to a corpse who was resisting. Though I doubt that the peace talks had a significant effect on the war's end it is indisputable that it is a negative in the question regarding Austria-Hungary's rating as an ally.>from what I can find it was only about a customs union and that they were to be more closely aligned in foreign policyThat was the wording yes but you have to look at the context not only surrounding when it was signed but also the historical standard up to that point, allowing the Germans a "say" over their economic policy and foreign policy would have been unthinkable in 1913 alone yet now it was non-negotiable. If the Austrians now had to refer to a German theatre commanders for permission to act on an offensive, if they had to refer to a German diplomat on what to say and if they had to speak to a Reichstag economist on future planning then they have fundamentally lost their sovereignty.
>>18294202>Sending advisors, liaisons, and attachés to your allies is standard practice, as is subordinating some of your units under allied command.The first half is certainly standard practice, the second certainly is not. Even the Entente who were winning at this point still had intense disagreements over Allied command, most noticeable in this year with Pershing and the AEF. To insist that the AOK had operational freedom by this point is simply fanciful. Just because the officers of the KUK did not have Pickelhaubes does not mean German influence was not utterly choking in the upper echelons. It did certainly range from soft to heavy touches theatre to theatre but if the OHL made a decision the Austrians either followed it or attacked and without German support which by 1918 was a death sentence.>they voluntarily chose war over a viable, but unacceptable, peace.The issue with this statement is that it is built on an incredibly weak argument. It runs with the idea that a bitter pill caused the Austrians to fight, and there fore preserve it's honour, whilst forgetting that it goes both ways - one can argue that if the pill was sweeter, through French or British intervention, the Austrians would have accepted. It does nothing for Austria except make them look mercenary. Austria-Hungary was not a bad ally fundamentally yet it became thus due to countless missteps and refusals to improve itself until it was too late. Again, remembering the question in the OP I would say they are certainly not underrated.
>>18294276Tangential but it's odd to think that no one in the picrel is ahove 180cm, it's what surprised me the most when i went to a WW1 museum last year, all the uniforms looked like they were for children
>>18294294Now obviously pic related is set up to show the difference between the two but I still find it interesting.
>>18294294Also here is Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich next to the Tsar.
