![robert-e-lee-jpg[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/XTQPN6U.jpg "robert-e-lee-jpg[1].jpg")
Who put up the better fight against insurmountable odds in a losing effort: Napoleon, the Confederate States of America, or the Third Reich/Nazi Germany?
>>373886
I think Shu-Han beats them all.
they literally all had a shot except for maybe the nazis, hitler just got fucked over because of his shitty diplomatic skills
but the answer is carthage
>>373891
Wasn't the question. No one cares about that part of the world. Stay on topic.
>>373897
Could say the same thing about Napoleon.
>>373897
Confirmed for knowing jack-fucking-shit about WWII. Hitler only became Hitler BECAUSE of his diplomatic skills. I'll remind you that Hitler was DEMOCRATICALLY elected. I could go on in length but you're better off Googling as I don't trust myself to paint a proper picture of WWII German diplomacy.
>>373886
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dervish_state
>The Dervish State acquired renown in the Islamic and Western worlds due to its resistance against the European empires of Britain and Italy. The Dervish forces successfully repulsed the British Empire in four military expeditions, and forced it to retreat to the coastal region.[1] As a result of its fame in the Middle East and Europe, the Dervish State was recognized as an ally by the Ottoman Empire and the German Empire.[2][3] It also succeeded at outliving the Scramble for Africa, and remained throughout World War I the only independent Muslim power on the continent.[4] After a quarter of a century of holding the British at bay, the Dervishes were finally defeated in 1920, when Britain used aeroplanes to bomb the Dervish capital of Taleh.
>>373911
>doesn't know how to stay on topic
>>373898
So, we should be bound by your ignorance of world history?
>>373922
What the fuck are you talking about? Ignorance? It's just a specific question. Nothing in OP says they were the three GREATEST, it's just comparing those three.
Go be autistic somewhere else.
>>373917
No one cares about your dumb guidelines nigger.
In any case, it was Napoleon. There. Now educate yourself so you aren't so ignorant.
>>373928
>>373886
Probably Napoleon. He lasted the longest, held the most territory and Won the most battles. He was so good I question whether he was truly the underdog or simply squandered his greater potential. Nappy could have done it. Nazi Germany was doomed when made it their mission to defeat the Soviet Union. the Confederates were pretty much done from the word go. gg 2 ez
>>373907
i mean international diplomacy
>>373944
Yeah I agree. Napoleon did about as much as he could. Fighting every other major power at the time...yikes. Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia. And he whooped them repeatedly for years and years until war exhaustion at the end and the Russia disaster.
Rhodesia
>>373886
The Confederates. Hitler and Napoleon only found themselves facing insurmountable odds because they couldn't quit while they were ahead. The Confederates never really had a chance but held out for years against a machine that should have steamrolled them in short order
>>373907
>find yourself fighting against the entire planet
>good at diplomacy
Pick one.
>>373886
Is there any particular reason you chose those three options? Because none of them strike me as especially heroic, or insurmountable (unless you're talking about the endgame, but every battle is insurmountable for the loser by the endgame).
>>373886
Napoleon. He spent most of those wars winning, and could have actually survived if the last few had been fought better, or had he accepted to Frankfurt Proposal.
On the other hand the South never stood a chance, and the North wasn't going to let them be.
>>373886
Spain agaisnt Napoleon.
>>375271
Napoleon even had the support of many German intellectuals like Goethe. He should have won. The world would be a better one today.
Paraguay
>>373886
The CSA. They had it shit from the start but managed to fight on for 5 more years. Napoleon had it great till the rest of Europe ganged up on him and Hitler could've won if he wasn't such a dumbass.
>>373886
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in late 1941, after they got their shit together.
>>374988
Dude just generated way too much aggressive expansion opinion modifier in his neighbors. That's why you wait a few years to let it calm down before launching your next invasion.
>>377418
Also the CSA managed to kill more of the union even though they lost.
>>375409
Yeah, fighting, with help from Brits and Portuguese, against a second-rate French army on what was a secondary theater for France while they were at war with Russia, Prussia and Austria in Eastern Europe sure was a huge challenge
>>373886
Last time I checked, Napoleon won three wars before being defeated and the other two won zero. Five wars if you tak revolutionary France instead of just "Napoleon".
>>377418
>Napoleon had it great till the rest of Europe ganged up on him
So the start of the wars?
C.S.A C.S.A C.S.A
Nazi Germany
Fought to the very bitter end.
But the nature of warfare was different, insurgency style combat was much rarer before WW2.
>>377654
It wasn't rarer, it was just markedly less effective.
I'd recommend Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife if you want some in-depth stuff about counterinsurgency, but the very tldr version is that the best predictor of success for the government is having a low ratio of:
hostile population/troops in theater.
Army sizes are bigger in the modern era than they were at any point in history, true, but when expressed as fractions of overall population sizes, they've actually shrunk from at the very least the 18th century (I don't have much data for earlier), and mechanization is used to increase mobility and firepower.
The problem is that defeating an insurgency is usually more about administration and policing, and a tank or an airplane isn't much good at that.
>>377446
Considering how the Spanish Army was fighting WITH Napoleon.
Yes, it was.
