Who was the most useless nation during WWII?

Hey! don't forget about Ernest Hemingway! But seriously, it really isn't fair to say that neutral nations were useless. Sometimes neutrality was the only method for national survival. Had Switzerland joined the Allies early in the war they would have been subjigated by the Germans. Likely the same with Sweeden, but I don't know, so if I am wrong about Sweeden just correct me, don't blast me.

Spain had just finished its own civil war. No shame in sitting one out, regardless of who helped you during the war. Especially in a war of aggression (Franco leaned towards Germany).

Turkey got a pretty short end of the stick in WWI, makes pretty good sense to them at the time to sit out act two.

We have to keep in mind that we have this view that Hitler would have conquered the world if not stopped. I think this is true, but it was by no means apparent to all nations in WWII. WWII was just the last (so far) of the massive European wars that were extremely destructive. At the time to nations like Switzerland and Turkey it likely seemed to be another war that would run its course. The balance would be changed, but from their perspective staying out of the war was the best policy.

So, the first really war against fascism was in Spain and England, France and all the other allies did ... NOTHING.

Click to expand...

WWII wasn't a war against fascism it was a war against Hitler's invasion of Europe. It must be made clear the the Spainish civil war, although as you stated with outsider helpers, was a civil war. WWII was started when Hitler invaded another country and not when he took power, which should have been the case if it was an actual war against fascism. Also Italy had a fascism dictatorship since 1924 and Britain/France didn't lauch a war against them.

the spanish republic had to figth almost alone against the fascists

Click to expand...

As a side note. How can a republic fight alone when you state it had help from the Russians? Lacking a bit of logic there me thinks.

Originally posted by MrPresident


WWII wasn't a war against fascism it was a war against Hitler's invasion of Europe. It must be made clear the the Spainish civil war, although as you stated with outsider helpers, was a civil war. WWII was started when Hitler invaded another country and not when he took power, which should have been the case if it was an actual war against fascism. Also Italy had a fascism dictatorship since 1924 and Britain/France didn't lauch a war against them.
As a side note. How can a republic fight alone when you state it had help from the Russians? Lacking a bit of logic there me thinks.

Click to expand...

Almost alone in not equal to alone. The help provided for Russia to the republicans was very small compared to the help Franco recived from Germany and Italy. No lack of logic in my statement, I think.

If WWII was a war against fascism or not is something that can be disccussed. Why do you think Hitler wanted to conquer all Europe? Are you sure it has nothing to do with the fascism? I'm not so sure.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Sweden.

Smack between a capitalist (Norway) and near communist country (Soviet Union), and out of reach of Adolf Hitler.

With safety like that, you think they'd at least question Hitler instead of ignore World War II.

Click to expand...

1. Norway was under Nazi control, and if I am understood correctly, Hitler
led the Nazis.
2. Check your geography book; between USSR and Sweden was country called FILAND.
Now you can edit the spelling mistake of book and learn ur lesson.

Sweden actually supplied us with 10 000 troops in 1939.

When compared the strength of the nation and their useful within the alliance, the
Italy was most useless country.

Originally posted by knowltok
Had Switzerland joined the Allies early in the war they would have been subjigated by the Germans.

Click to expand...

Hitler had in mind to invade Switzerland in 1940 n thought about it again in 1943 but the Nazis got impressed by the Swiss patriotic army.
In switzerland nearly every guy's got a machine-gun with 24 cartridges n more than 1 100 000 guys can be raised within 48 hours.
It was even more in WW2.
That conscription system always protected Switzerland since its birth in 1291.

Don't think I was questioning Switzerland's ability to defend itself. I know that was a major factor in why the Nazis didn't attack them, but had Switzerland declared war on Germany, I suspect that things would have gone poorly for them. That was my point.

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Yes it is, and this isn't your web site.
The knocking of Italy is unjustifed, it's navy (destroyers and smaller craft) fought a spirted was vs Britain, as well as scoring a major sucess with commando scuba-men in Alexandria, severly damaging 2 British battleships.
It's land forces fought poorly, however, and it's airforce fought with inferior equipment for most of the war.

Click to expand...

The Italian navy actually fought rather poorly. It outnumbered the British Med fleet, and had some great warships, but was poorly handled by unagressive comanders. After 1942 the Italian navy was crippled by fuel shortages.

Still, IMHO France and not Italy takes the prize. Italy was never really a serous burden on the Germans - I'd count the North African and Italian campaigns as tactical victories for the Germans (in both campaings they were able to hold down large Allied forces with much smaller axis forces). In contrast, the fall of France nearly lost the war for the Allies, and was mainly the fault of French blundering and a lack of desire to fight.

Originally posted by andycapp


Whether you are guilty of spamming will be something the mods pass judgement on but let's be clear why your "little jokes" were resolved with this Aussie. I didn't appreciate your pathetically ignorant post (humour?) about Australia's role in WW2 but once it became clear that you are an immature boy with no concept of anyones rights but your own I decided that further conversation with you was pointless - you however were not content to let the matter drop and continued your self centred spat with both knowltok and Case.

Click to expand...

Hmm.... do I have talk you thru it too? You really want this to drag on, do you? I'm not going to take your post apart and replying to every points you made since obviously you only took one part of mine for some reason..... Anyways it's interesting to see how you judge people. All I want to say is, although you do have a point, you way of expression made me shaked my head and laugh.... I will pass the "pathtically ignorant post", "furthur conversation with you was pointless", and "not content to let the matter drop" right back to you.

It will probably come as a harsh lesson for you (at some point in your life), that in this world you usually get what you give - it shouldn't come as any suprise that you have less value to this board than you think.

Click to expand...

Oh wait a minute, since when did I claim I have a lot of value in this board? This kind of non-supported bashing lower yourself, whoever you think you are And if the smilies didn't work for me to you, yours don't work for me either

What I learnt so far is that some people lack a sense of humor, fron now on I will try to restrict my use of and if it really matters that much

Let me guess, you are an Austrialian?

Originally posted by cataclysm


Heh, ban me if you want to, this board has less value to me than you think it does.

Click to expand...

You got it, one week.

While you are at it, why don't you remove the smily from the board? What purpose do they serve?

Click to expand...

When I answer to you(IE when hell freezes over), than I'll give a rat's ass about your question.

Did I spam? No. Some of my posts in THIS thread do have a lower value compare to the rest but was it aimed to disrupt the thread? By the way, in the end all who involved with my little jokes resolved with me (reread the thread if you don't believe that) quite well.

Click to expand...

You don't understand sonny, isn't important what YOU think, I told you something as a moderator, you chose to be awise guy.
In other words, adios.

And to your question, did I ENCOURAGED others to turn MY thread into a big joke? NO, I said "I don't care if you turn it into a big joke", AKA: I do not mind/have a higher tolerance at people who try to soften up the atmosphere in a formal discussion, especially in a thread I pioneered. Did you came here to tell me otherwise?

Click to expand...

Check who are the forum moderators are, newbie.
That's where I came from.
You can do it during your week off.

If this is the last word you guys will heard from me, then so be it.
I'm used to how *some* American deal with things, big deal.....(Yep, I'm a Canadian )

Click to expand...

Yes, we eliminate idiots, like you toot suite.

Bye bye sweet ems.
Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

Try and buck my authority again, and watch your posts disapear, as well as your posting privlages.

Originally posted by Case

The Italian navy actually fought rather poorly. It outnumbered the British Med fleet, and had some great warships, but was poorly handled by unagressive comanders. After 1942 the Italian navy was crippled by fuel shortages.

Click to expand...

Case, if you notice, I specifically said Light forces, destroyers or less. Italian torpedo boats and light craft caused considerable trouble to the Royal Navy in the med.

I'm well aware Italian heavy units fought poorly, that's why I worded it as I did.

France just sucked. I voted for them.
I say Sweden and Switzerland were the most vile countries other than Germany, Japan and Russia.
Sweden and Switzerland helped the nazi's but stayed neutral.
Switzerland funneled money and jewish items. Sweden helped the nazi's in numerous things including hitlers project for a aryan nation. when he was putting together the SS soldiers and white women to have children and stuff. Forgot exactly what sweden did, but it was bad.
German and Japan are obvious.
Russia because they shot their own troops for retreating.
And plus stalin killed a good 15-25million people during his reign of terror. I'm doing a report on terrorism

Hitler wanted to conquer all Europe? Are you sure it has nothing to do with the fascism? I'm not so sure.

Click to expand...

I think we need to establish the fact that fascism and nazism are different. Fascism is not an established ideological as say communism. It does not have specific policies or objectives that must be achieved. It was formed in 1919 in Milan, Italy by Mussolini. Initially the policies it promoted were very socialist but by 1922 fascism had grown to be a violent alternative to socialism. Fascism because it was born in Italy was closely related to Italian culture, particulary Roman. Obviously this kind of fascism could not achieve support in Germany, so Hitler adapted fascism by creating Nazism. One glaring example of difference is their policy towards Jews and other enthic minorities. We all know the policies of Hitler. Mussolini on the other hand had did not have anti-semitic laws until he was pressured into it by the Nazis in the late 1930s (considering he was in power as a dictator from 1924 it can be said that the anti-semitic laws were not one of his own beliefs). To the Italians credit the Catholic church openly opposed these laws, although the king signed them he too had his reservations. So I think it can be said Fascism and Nazism are seperate enough to be called different. I do admit though that both Facism and Nazism are pro-war ideologies. However I think that Hitler wanted to conquer Europe so he could have his "great" German empire.

Originally posted by SunTzu
I say Sweden and Switzerland were the most vile countries other than Germany, Japan and Russia.
Sweden and Switzerland helped the nazi's but stayed neutral.
Switzerland funneled money and jewish items.

Click to expand...

Switzerland and swiss people didn't help the Nazis;the swiss banks did as did all european ones(even the british ones).
I had already written about it on another post.

Only question on the bank issue is when? I doubt that British banks were making loans to Hitler in 1942.

The most useless in doing anything BUT remain neutral?

Free Ireland, Churchill's greatest liability!

Originally posted by MrPresident
I think we need to establish the fact that fascism and nazism are different. Fascism is not an established ideological as say communism. It does not have specific policies or objectives that must be achieved.

Click to expand...

Fascism is just as much an ideology as Communism.

Originally posted by MrPresident
So I think it can be said Fascism and Nazism are seperate enough to be called different. I do admit though that both Facism and Nazism are pro-war ideologies.

Click to expand...

Nazism is just a sub-strand of fascism, just as Maoism is a sub-strand of communism. It's just one particular approach to an ideology that will differ from others ways of approaching it, and you get that in any ideology.

Still, IMHO France and not Italy takes the prize. Italy was never really a serous burden on the Germans - I'd count the North African and Italian campaigns as tactical victories for the Germans (in both campaings they were able to hold down large Allied forces with much smaller axis forces). In contrast, the fall of France nearly lost the war for the Allies, and was mainly the fault of French blundering and a lack of desire to fight.

Click to expand...

But what about the Balkan campaign? Italy alienated Yugoslavia and invaded Greece, actually putting off operation Barbarosa, which later failed, due at least partially to winter conditions. If the Germans had had another couple of months before things got too cold in Russia, who knows, they might have gotten to Moscow. Italy caused this delay with the Balkan campaign.

Sure the fall of France was a problem, but obviously it didn't decide the outcome of the war. Some historians (yeah OK only 2 that I'm aware of) think that the Balkan campaign did.

"Sure the fall of France was a problem, but obviously it didn't decide the outcome of the war. Some historians (yeah OK only 2 that I'm aware of) think that the Balkan campaign did."

Had France not fallen, they would have proved to be Nazi Germany's greatest bane. British troops (and later American forces as well) could land at whim and reinforced the French forces. Germany would have been helmed in by France; the U-boat campaign would probably not go far cos the Germans wouldn't have those convenient Atlantic bases in N France.

Remember that the French got as many troops and more tanks than the Germans and Germany would have to place a large force to guard its western border. Had the French commanders been more innovative, they could have taken the war to the Germans ..... by invading Germany itself.

And the Russian campaign would probably not gotten started at all. WW2 in Europe would have taken a radically different course ....

Originally posted by SkidiWili


What was that all about? Between Norway and Soviet Union. I wonder where you put Finland... Without Finland the Soviet forces would have rolled to Sweden, and then they would have their piece of war...

Click to expand...

I guess that's why there were so much Swedish volunteers fighting on the finish side during the winter war...

Fascism is just as much an ideology as Communism.

Click to expand...

I am sorry but that is completely wrong. Communism has defined goals and ways in which to achieve them. It has explainations as why these goals should be meet. Fascism was created by Mussolini after WWI as a combination of nationalism and socialism (don't forget Mussolini was a socialist, editoring one of their main newspapers). When Mussolini got popular support it was not because of his ideological but because his squads beat up socialists. Also fascism is particular to Italy, although I admit there are common beliefs such as a need for war, there is no set ideological. The policies of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy are as much, if not more, to do with the country there were in as the ideological they believed. It is can even be argued that Mussolini was never a devout fascism merely using it as a means of acquiring power. Hitler, on the other hand, had a strong belief in his ideological and center to that was his anti-Jewish feeling. Italy had no such anti-jewish feeling with the Catholic church actually standing up for the jews when Mussolini, under Hitler's orders, introduced anti-jewish laws.

Nazism is just a sub-strand of fascism

Click to expand...

I admit that nazism can be considered a sub-strand of fascism but not in the same way as maoism or leninism is to communism. Take for example Lenin-Maxist theory, this has the same aim of communism but Lenin didn't want to wait for capitalist stage that Marx said was necessary. So Lenin (in simple terms) basically cut that stage out and created a new theory that said you could go from the feudalist stage to the socialist stage in one step. This is not the same as the difference between fascism and nazism. As I have said there is no goal in fascism but a collection of ideas, like the putting of Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest onto to countries. So I think that Nazism probably isn't a sub-strand of fascism but the German equivalent.