A tricky question. Easily one could say “The French Army was cowardly for surrendering” and though this holds some merit, by that point France was already fallen, so no point in fighting yes?
“Italian army was cowardly for switching sides and being bad”. Being bad does not automatically mean you are cowardly, the Italian leadership, morale and unit quality overall was just bad. As for switching sides, yes this could be seen cowardly and this definitely would be considered dishonorable if not for the atrocities of Nazi Germany. Italy also “switched” sides in WW1 not honoring the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Austria-Hungary, this could also be seen as cowardly, as they betrayed their friends being afraid of France and Britain, though I am certain this was because they wanted Austrian territory.
But I am gonna represent an army many would not list here.
The Finnish Army. Alright, alright, yes our (I am a Finn) army was pretty tough during all three wars we fought in the span of 1939–1945. BUT, our military leadership was cowardly during the Continuation War, even more so than France.
The Finnish leadership was very speculative. Speculating every possible outcome which may seem like a smart move, but many things Finland did (or rather didn’t) could be seen very cowardly.
Firstly Siege of Leningrad. We did not want to actively want to participate in the Siege because we started to grow scared of German defeat. So we did not actively begin to siege the city (though we didn’t have our claws in the city our paw was still blocking a part of the city, thus making us a participant indirectly). I am not saying that the Eastern front could have been won if Finland did this, but still pretty cowardly, considering we were already thinking of consequences of a possible defeat. One reason why Finland did this, was because if we would have lost the war, by not participating in the siege our standing in the peace table would be stronger.
Secondly the Murmansk railroad line. We could have cut the line and taken it over and thus cutting of Murmansk and Kola from the rest of Russia, but we didn’t because United States threatened us. We were already at war with the USSR and Britain, so I’d say, pretty cowardly.
“Finland should stop all offensive operations and withdraw to the 1939 border.” The note went on to say, “that should material of war sent by the United States to Soviet territory in the north by way of the Arctic Ocean be attacked en route either presumably or allegedly from territory under Finnish control, in the present state of opinion in the United States, such an incident must be expected to bring about an instant crisis between Finland and the United States.”
Thirdly and lastly, just leaving the war in 1944 and switching sides. We pulled not only the French maneuver of surrendering before exhausting all of our resources but we also pulled the Italian maneuver by switching sides (but so did all of the Axis minors). And after that we began to actively fight against the Germans (after briefly “playing” war with the Germans)
Now I recognize that the Finnish Army was kicking ass during WW2, but these three points show the Finnish army in a bit more cowardly light.
EDIT: Wow this really blew up. I never expected this, but what I did expect was it being controversial a bit. So few clarifications:
Very very firstly: I am talking about the Continuation War, if it was not already clear. NOT the Winter War. WE (maybe not willingly) invaded the Soviet Union alongside the Axis in the Continuation War.
Firstly: Cowardly does not mean dumb or bad, sometimes cowardly decision is the right and smart decision to do, it just has negative connotations to it.
Secondly: This article is about Military Leadership (counting national leadership) not individual soldiers or units of the army. I am not calling an ordinary soldier a coward, otherwise I would be calling my grandfathers cowards, which they were not. One of my grandfathers was shot in the chest during the Continuation War and another grandfather lost his hand during the war, I am NOT calling my grandfathers cowards, because they definitely were not.
Thirdly: I am calling the Finnish Leadership and its actions cowardly. I am not calling them straight up cowards. Same thing with my mentions of Italy and France, their decisions were cowardly, but they were not cowards!
No comments