Who was the most useless nation during WWII?

Who was the most useless nation during WWII

  • France

    Votes: 46 23.7%
  • Italy

    Votes: 47 24.2%
  • China

    Votes: 11 5.7%
  • Czechs

    Votes: 10 5.2%
  • Poland

    Votes: 9 4.6%
  • Netherlands

    Votes: 5 2.6%
  • Beligum

    Votes: 12 6.2%
  • Switzerland

    Votes: 20 10.3%
  • One of the countries from the British Empire

    Votes: 6 3.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 28 14.4%

  • Total voters
    194
Status
Not open for further replies.
Spycatcher34 wrote: I didnt even know the czechs were in the war.

But poland sucks real bad. Ok horses vs. armored tanks.

1. The Czechs weren't in the war. Chamberlain and Deladier gave the strategic western parts of Czechoslovakia to Hitler at Munich, without giving any guarantee for what was left. Hitler overran the remnants without resistance in Spring 1939. The Czech resistance was active during the war (more than the French) and they managed to assassinate Heydrich Reinhardt (getting the village of Lidice destroyed for it) but Czechoslovakia didn't exist during the war. Some Czechs did serve with the Allied armies, especially the British, but the Czech Army never saw service.

2. The Polish cavalry-attacking Nazi tanks thing is a myth invented by Nazi propaganda. It stemmed from an incident when in the confusion of retreat, some Polish cavalry got caught in the open by a Wehrmacht armored division. They fought their way out, with the sole intent of getting the hell out of there. The Nazis later spread the story that the armored division was attacked by the cavalry, as a sort of condescending comparison of Polish fighting forces to the modern Wehrmacht. Due to road conditions and harsher weather conditions in Eastern Europe, horse-mounted cavalry were far more effective much of the year than armored vehicles so right til the end of the war both the Nazis and the Soviets maintained large horse cavalry.

3. Before you knock the Polish war effort, let's compare notes a bit: Poland was attacked in September 1939 by two major military powers (Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union), was vastly outnumbered, had far fewer and less modern planes and tanks than its enemies, and was using outdated WW I-era strategies and tactics. Oh, also - Poland is essentially a flat plain, with only one river system (Vistula), with no natural barriers to hide behind. Within two weeks the unified front collapsed, and the Polish army formed army group defense zones. Warsaw finally fell on 27. September, 27 days after the Nazi attack and 10 days after the Soviet attack. The last major defense zone collapsed on 05. October, 35 days after the invasion began. 35 days.

Now let's compare this to, oh, say France, Belgium, Luxembourg and Holland. France alone had as many planes as the Germans, and a small advantage in infantry. France had a comparable number of tanks as well, though they used them very differently (i.e., less effectively). The invasion route for the Germans lead through the old WW I battlefields, which had multiple river systems and forested areas. On 10. May Hitler launched his invasion of the West; by 15. May the Dutch Army was eliminated as an effective fighting force (5 days), by the 17th the French line had been penetrated (7 days) leaving the Channel exposed and giving the BEF the impetus to head for home leaving all their equipment on the beaches of Dunkirk, on the 24th the French made their last attempt to break the German assault (but failed) and their rear areas dissolved into chaos (14 days), on the 28th the Belgians surrendered (18 days), on 10. June Paris fell, effectively ending French resistance (though some mopping-up operations still went on against the Maginot Line from behind). Total: 30 days.

Hmmm; Poland = 35 days, France + Belgium + Holland + Luxembourg + BEF = 30 days. Hmmm. Poland = Smaller army with no natural barriers, against two invaders and still lasted 35 days; France + Belgium + Holland + Luxembourg + BEF = more soldiers, more equipment, with more natural barriers, lasted 5 days less than the Poles. Hmmm.

Poles also gave the Allied cause soldiers throughout the war, making the 4th largest contribution of men after the Soviets, Americans and British. Poles fought at Narvik in Norway (The first Allied submarine victory was by a Polish submarine that sank a German transport near Bergen.), in France, in Britain (one-fifth of the pilots on the Allied side in the Battle of Britain were Poles), in North Africa, in Italy (taking Monte Cassino when American and British assaults failed) and of course in Poland itself. The Polish resistance (Armia Krajowa - AK) was the 2nd largest in Europe during the war, after the Yugoslavs. (Almost everything the Allies learned about the Holocaust during the war came from the AK.) Contrary to what a popular recent American film claims, it was Polish intelligence officers working for the British who cracked the Nazi Enigma code system. Poland lost 6 million people in the war, one-quarter (1/4) of its pre-war population. Only the Soviet Union proportionately lost as much (20 million Soviets dead = 1/4 of their pre-war population).

Although you wouldn't know it from the way it was abandoned at war's end to the Soviets, Poland's wartime contribution wasn't quite "useless".
 
So Vrylakas, you wouldn't happen to be Polish would you? ;) I agree with you, that the Poles are usually not given enough credit for what they did in WW2. Just making an effort to stand up to an attack on both sides by two of the most powerful countries in the world is an amazing feat of courage.
 
Originally posted by cataclysm
how about aussie? From what I remember, all they did was took one beating from Japan(air raid):D:D:D

You wouldn't happen to be a Kiwi would you? :p
(grumbles about the criket)


for the record:

Australian forces fought in just about every theatre of the war. The Australian army fought with disticntion in North Africa, Greece, Syria, Malaya, the Dutch East Indies, Australia, New Guinia and Borneo.
The Royal Australian Navy served in all the worlds oceans, and accounted for large numbers of German, Italian and Japanese ships and subs.
The Royal Australian Airforce also served world wide, with thousands of Australians serving in the RAF's fighter and bomber commands (the 'bomber offencive' was Australia's most bloody campaign of the war). The Australian airforce also served well in the Pacific theatre, and by the end of the war was the worlds 4th most powerful airforce!
 
Originally posted by cataclysm
how about aussie? From what I remember, all they did was took one beating from Japan(air raid):D:D:D

The Australians inflicted the first land defeat, in the Pacific War, on the Japanese at Milne Bay on the southeast coast of Papua New Guinea - thus destroying the myth of Japanese invincibility.

The Japanese amphibious assault on Milne Bay was an attempt to build a bridgehead to capture Port Moresby - they failed.

The Japanese were defeated at Milne bay by Australian ground forces and in the naval battle of the Coral Sea by US/Australian naval and air units.

This restricted the Japanese to attempt capture of Port Moresby by land attack across the Owen Stanley mountain range - this also resulted in defeat for the Japanese by Australian forces.

'cataclysm' a Kiwi? Seems more likely to be a product of that great institution promoting historical accuracy - the Japanese education system. :rolleyes:

Where ever 'cataclysm' is from, intelligent and interesting discussion are obviously not part of his/her repetoire. :D
 
Anyone who dismisses the Australian contribution to Allied victory either doesn't have the first clue what they are talking about, or is trolling.
As stated above, Australian forces served with distinction in virtually every theatre of operations, fighting with extreme skill and courage.
 
Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Anyone who dismisses the Australian contribution to Allied victory either doesn't have the first clue what they are talking about, or is trolling.
As stated above, Australian forces served with distinction in virtually every theatre of operations, fighting with extreme skill and courage.

Hehe, come on, I put :D * 3 at the end of my post for a reason. I was kidding

Btw, I'm a Canadian, ain't it explain something:p

what exactly is a kiwi?

For intellectual discussion I contributed, here is an example. A Topic I started 1 month ago, feel free to add your comment:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7826
 
Tsk. I knew I remembered ye from somewhere:)
Since it was said in jest, I will now pick up my red telephone and cancel the air raid that I had organized on Auckland, although I'm in half a mind to go ahead with it after the bastards got Warnie for 99:mad:
Kiwi = New Zealander. Two small pieces of rock somewhere to the right of where I am currently sitting, populated by our strangely-accented, backward cousins who have the most amazing love for sheep;)

Pity about the misunderstanding and the subsequent verbal bollocking, but you never know these days if people are serious when they post something like that. There are some "different" people out there.
 
Originally posted by cataclysm


Hehe, come on, I put :D * 3 at the end of my post for a reason. I was kidding

So was I, about the wack across the head, although there is a certain satisfaction in hearing the 'thwack' as hand hits head - metaphorically speaking of course! :D

Just a word of friendly advice, Aussies get a bit touchy when others trivalise or make fun of, the sacrifice made by our nation in WW2 - even if it was said in jest.

Btw, I'm a Canadian, ain't it explain something:p

Enlighten us, what does this explain?

what exactly is a kiwi?

A flightless bird native to New Zealand - also the New Zealander's nickname for themselves.

Aussies sometimes refer to New Zealanders by other names that have something to do with their fraternising with sheep. ;)

Of course Kiwi's will always be our ANZAC mates. :)
 
*cough* Denmark *cough*
 
Good call...
 
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.

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...
 
Originally posted by SpaceCow
*cough* Denmark *cough*

nah. They were one of the few countries that managed to save most of their Jews by smuggling them out to Sweden through boats.
 
Catayclsm,

Like everybody else, I deplore your suggestion that Australia didn't contribute anything to the war. In fact, Australia lent thousands of troops and equipment, as well as held their own against the Japanese. I think only the Northern Territories were ever bombed.

I chose the Netherlands. Not because they did not attempt to help after they were defeated. I solely went off the notion that the entire nation was rolled over in 6 days. I suppose it is understandable, due to the geographical traits.

~Chris

P.S.- I second the notion Sweden was also rather worthless.
 
Originally posted by geake


Well that's a point of view. But maybe they didn't have the same equipment.

The French army had more and better equipment than the Germans in terms of tanks and mechanization. The air force was inferior in numbers of aircraft, but not in quality. Frances weaknesses were in organization of combat units, stragtegy and deployment, and morale. In addition to historical study, i have often wargamed the campaign. Having played the 1940 France campaing dozens of times in several different similutions, my 100% experiance as wargamer was that the Germans cannot not achhive any thing resembling the victory unless there are rules requiring really stupid deployment by the French.
 
Originally posted by andycapp

Enlighten us, what does this explain?

Ummm....... probably not much. I was taught last year that Canada was like the big brother amount the British Commonwealth during WWII(and for a period of post WWII). Aussie did something(riot?) post WWII and has something to do with two assassination attempts on the queen. Or could be WWI, I can't really remember. Of course, I know it's some kind of Canadian educational system propaganda:p

and also, I was told that the aussies are touchy, hence a little experiment.....:D
 
Originally posted by sonorakitch
I think only the Northern Territories were ever bombed.

Towns in Northern Queensland and Western Australia were also bombed. In addition, Japanese midget submarines raided Sydney Harbour, and their mother subs shelled Sydney and Newcastle, and flew Submarine launched aircraft over Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart. Several small Japanese recon parties also landed on the Australian north coast.

Denmark acutally did rather well in the war. While the country was occupied in a matter of hours (which was inevitable), the Danish government managed to surrender in a way which preserved much of Danish independance, and as previously mentioned, the Danish people showed great courage in defieing the Nazis and safeguarding thier Jewish population.

Personally I vote for France.
 
Originally posted by cataclysm

Aussie did something(riot?) post WWII and has something to do with two assassination attempts on the queen. Or could be WWI, I can't really remember. Of course, I know it's some kind of Canadian educational system propaganda:p

Huh? Australians fawned over the Queen in the most embarresing ways when she visited in the 50's. The Australian government broke with the British government during the war following Churchills crazy attempt to send the best units of the Australian army to Rangoon a few days before it fell to the Japanese.

and also, I was told that the aussies are touchy, hence a little experiment.....:D

It's called trolling :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Case


Huh? Australians fawned over the Queen in the most embarresing ways when she visited in the 50's. The Australian government broke with the British government during the war following Churchills crazy attempt to send the best units of the Australian army to Rangoon a few days before it fell to the Japanese.

yeah yeah yeah, you know more about history than I do


It's called trolling :rolleyes:

Do you happen to be an Australian?:eek: :eek: You seem to be the touchy type:p
 
yeah yeah yeah, you know more about history than I do

Then perhaps you should try to use the History forum as an avenue to increase your knowledge instead of intentionally stirring up trouble. Is it that the Canadian education system is not very good, or that they just haven't gotten to modern history by 5th grade? :)D :D :D ) <--This makes everything alright.

I assure the Aussies on the board that those of us in America haven't forgotten.

On Sweeden: They were quite useful as a source of Iron for Germany.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom