Prussia

frogs were just as good if not better, red coats, austrians, even the russians

prussia was not special, or different to other countries in the era, the hohenzollners house was doing its best to break free the habsburgs and wittelsbachs, thats about it
its post ww2 effect of american propaganda

>prussian militaaaarrryyy tradition is to go to war!
>ww1 happened because of that!
>ww2 prussian military tradition turned germans into fighting machines!
>prussians are warlike ppl! so are germans!
>we beat them back to back HOO RAAAH

youtube.com/watch?v=1v5QCGqDYGo

>be Prussian
>lose war so thoroughly that the only thing that could possibly save you is the enemy army giving up and going home without extracting concessions
>that happens
>twice
>"we are the greatest soldiers in Europe"

>red coats austrians, even the russians
early 19th century maybe, but in the mid to late 19th century Austria's army was utter shit, both strategically inept and somehow worse-equipped than the agrarian rednecks in the US that couldn't afford proper shoes. People laugh at their performance in WW1, but it wasn't that bad, and early 20th century Austria's army was a major improvement from just a few decades ago.

Anyway, the big reason Prussia was able to smack down their neighbors so easily was their railroad network. In Moltke's words:

>"We have the inestimable advantage of being able to carry our Field Army of 285,000 men over five railway lines and of virtually concentrating them in twenty-five days. ... Austria has only one railway line and it will take her forty-five days to assemble 200,000 men."

>Lose all the wars
>Why are Germans so God tier at war?

I like how you ignore the danes and defend austria :)

You can win all battles and still lose the war. Prussia/Germany has been peerless on the battlefield but notoriously bad at diplomacy and strategy, with Otto von Bismarck being a rare exception. The reason for that is that they considered politics and warfare two different things, which is odd given that it was Clausewitz who mentioned that one was but a continuation of the other.

Largest western European country by population and industry.

t. person who's not educated well enough about Prussia

The servile mindset of the german.

t. american propaganda

Truly magnificent
How can Anglos even compete?

>How is Prussia so good at fighting wars?
*does a frontflip and kicks you out of the way*
nothun personel kid

It does make sense.

There is more to waging war than just tactics.

>gets taken over by nignogs

ah yes the superior white mans dream
bahahahaha, pathetic

The Prussian superiority during the Franco-Prussian war could be attributed to the general staff. They used a system based on merits and inteligence instead or using wealth or social standing like the french mostly did at that time. They also trained their officer extensively.

Prussia recruited well into WWI officers mostly from their (aristocratic) gentry, the Junckers. While Prussia was 'more' meritocratic than it had been under the Soldier King or Frederick the Great, since the reforms after the Napoleonic Wars, it was still not nearly as meritocratic as France.

One of these reasons or a combination usually is the determining factor

1) Some other great power helped fund their military beyond what is naturally possible (UK)

2) A great statesmen knows when to use diplomacy and when to start a war, and always ensures that even in victory the losers save some face (Bismarck)

3) The other side is really fucking stupid and the senior staff of Prussia is competent and meritocratic based (Franco Prussian, German Unification, 7 Years war)

The Prussian soldier is decent but when most of your budget is on the military thats very low standards. Much of the other allied german troops they commanded were not particularly good or well motivated.

>Prussia during the Nepolianic wars got BTFOed a few times.
They did, everyone did but once Frederick finally committed to fighting they were great. Really good commanders/leadership at the upper level during the Wars of Liberation.

Prussia btfo lmao

That's more a British thing actually such that somewhere that post is causing a stirring in the loins of the ghost of A.J.P. Taylor.

Advertising.

Autism.

That pic literally implies that Hindenberg and Ludendorff were in the "incompetents or a madman" category.

They were "an army with a state", not the other way around.

>people still spout this meme

The French let the Prussians win because they didn't think the Lorraine was worth fighting for and took pity on the Germans. When the krauts threw their toys out the pram in WW1 the French actually began playing to win in 1917 after letting them have a tantrum for a few years and the might of the French army crushed the Germans as it always could.

WW2 was the same deal, the French just decided the war wasn't worth the deaths and so just decided not to fight because they knew that the German would once again get what he deserved.

>Frederick the Great
>Miracle of the House of Brandenburg

Prussia was defeated hard by Russia and Austria and was close to being ended as a state not once but twice during the 7 years war.

Why they never followed through with it... no idea. But they were on the edge of complete collapse.

They knew how to pick their opponents.

...

Tsar was a retard

>I like how you ignore the danes
t. Swede

Combination of Slavic leadership and Germanic discipline.

It was the fact that Prussia mastered the ideas of Total War and learned lessons from the American Civil War. (I.E.) Using railways for troop transport, and telegrams for communication. Also, Prussia had the Dryers Needle Rifle.

>Slavic leadership
[citation needed]

Generals and Junkers to be precise.

They spent half of income on millitary and treated it's citizens like shit unless they wanted to be good cucks of Junkers.

This is why Germans with more common sense were leaving this shithole for the USA in 19th century.

But autistic /pol/acks like you think it was a cool, strong and rich state.

Hindenburg even looked like a stereotypical Slav to be honest.

Brainlet here, what sort of influence did the Prussians (or the people who would be considered Prussians) have during WWII?

It seems they were conservative for their time and wouldn't really agree with Hitler's (an Austrian) programs and policies.

Clausewitz was German not Slavic.

This quote should illustrate what traditionalists through of the "brown gang".
>There's a man alone, without family, without children, without God... He builds legions, but he doesn't build a nation. A nation is created by families, a religion, traditions: it is made up out of the hearts of mothers, the wisdom of fathers, the joy and the exuberance of children... For a few months I was inclined to believe in National Socialism. I thought of it as a necessary fever. And I was gratified to see that there were, associated with it for a time, some of the wisest and most outstanding Germans. But these, one by one, he has got rid of or even killed... He has left nothing but a bunch of shirted gangsters! This man could bring home victories to our people each year, without bringing them either glory or danger. But of our Germany, which was a nation of poets and musicians, of artists and soldiers, he has made a nation of hysterics and hermits, engulfed in a mob and led by a thousand liars or fanatics.

T. Wagglin' Willy

p.s. Willy wasn't so based as this message makes him sound. He often begged like a little bitch so Hitler would restore him to the throne.

He was mixed.

tbeh I was mostly poking fun at the disgust Friedrich II. had about Slavic names, while later on Slavic names and dynasties with Slavic origin were quite common amongst the Prussian elite .

You know, I was beginning to admire the Prussians until I read about Ol' Willy, autistic bastard threw it all away but that letter raises my next question, what would Germany look like if Prussian dominance was maintained? From what Ol' Willy and other Prussians like Dietrich von Saucken would say about the Nazis, it seems things would've turned out differently if they were still in charge

I wouldn't be surprised since Ludendorff was from germanised pomeranian family, same as Manstein.

Depends on time period

Prussia was one of the few European militaries to start using conscripts in an age dominated by Mercenaries. And its competence came from their well trained ability (at least initially) and followed up with its very strong generals and their good protection from espionage due to its quick emergence leading to a smaller and less ingrained nobility.

The Prussian military adapted a lot of the systems the Dutch created over the course of the 17th Century and made innovations of their own (the goose step for instance in the 1720s or so).

That's not to say they didn't have mercenaries, they still had a ton, but the backbone was still the standing army unlike pretty much every other power in Europe.

Now, while that did make them strong, they did become a lot weaker over time. They were honestly one of the weakest armies in Europe by the time of Napoleon. Archduke Charles's army was easily the third strongest land power in Europe behind only Russia and France. They were the second army to learn how to properly mobilize themselves along the likes of Napoleon and they were the second to learn how to properly use artillery after experiencing Napoleon. They were a highly experienced and veteran military after the war, the Prussian military after performing so poorly during the Napoleonic wars restored its military culture among the nobility.