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.
Originally posted by knowltok
One thing to point out in Churchill's defence, he saw the nature of the coming conflict with the Soviets much more clearly than either Roosevelt or Eisenhower. That is why he favored invasion of the baltics to keep them away from Stalin and also wanted a drive for Berlin.

He also favoured them because he was out of his f**king mind ;)
Churhills proposed operations were unworkable, and may have lead to the Soviet Union conquering more of Western Europe (due to the Allied troops being occupied trying to blast the Germans out of some of the best defensive terrain in Europe)

Really, my main problem with Churchill is that I'm Australian, and Churchill seemed to specialise in killing Australians in pointless campaigns (Galipoli, Greece, Crete, Malaya, Singapore, etc)
 
Originally posted by Case

Really, my main problem with Churchill is that I'm Australian, and Churchill seemed to specialise in killing Australians in pointless campaigns (Galipoli, Greece, Crete, Malaya, Singapore, etc)

Churchill had very little liking for Australians, seeing them as tainted by convict ancestory. :rolleyes:

I agree with Case, he did specialize in killing Australians (perhaps he saw them as expendable) which rather diminishes his memory for those that lost loved ones through his military incompetence.
 
Another problem, that appears quite obviously in his memoirs, is that Churchill did not understand at all what a reserve was for. He didn't want troops just sitting around, getting ready for the op. This is one reason why D-Day took so long, he didn't like the thought of a huge army sitting around doing nothing in Great Britain. There are other reasons too, of course.
 
I voted "Other", for Lebanon. They declared war on Germany in late 1945. Need I say more?
 
hmmmm....... i wonder if he (Churchill) disliked the Kiwi's as well, seen as they fought in most (or all?) of these pathetic campaigns that led to the huge losses in ANZAC troops.....

And who was that idiot saying the Auzzies were useless in the war? thats pretty harsh, even joking around.

Yes, i can't believe it either, but im defending Oz!!

(but i hope he recognizes the effort us Kiwi's put in as well....heehee...had to say something patriotic!!!!!!)
 
Originally posted by voodoo chile
hmmmm....... i wonder if he (Churchill) disliked the Kiwi's as well, seen as they fought in most (or all?) of these pathetic campaigns that led to the huge losses in ANZAC troops.....

Not sure whether Kiwi's were held in more regard by Churchill than Aussies, however you're right Kiwi's suffered just as much as a result of Churchill's military schemes.



(but i hope he recognizes the effort us Kiwi's put in as well....heehee...had to say something patriotic!!!!!!)

New Zealand's efforts in both World Wars are legendary (to Aussies anyway). :goodjob:
 
I'll wholeheartedly agree that an invasion of Southern Europe would have been a mess. Just Look at the quagmire that Italy became. However a drive to Berlin may have been advantageous. It very well may not have been too. It is impossible to tell how things would have worked out if the lines had been drawn differently at the end of the war. I for one will take what we got and be satisfied that for the most part things worked out for the best. Those in Eastern Germany may disagree, but who's to say what a change might have led to.
 
I think if Patton had invaded Southern France first, he would have achieved success similar to Inchon. And I think you could stage such an invasion from Italy, semi-free from German intelligence picking up on it (at least when you consider all the counterintelligence the Allies were already giving them). South France was very lightly defended, because Von Rundstedt was all big on Pas de Calais being the invasion point; and there's plenty of areas just ripe for a quick armored breakout. Now you've got the Germans forced to relocate some large forces halfway across France, all-the-while with Allied aircraft pounding their railroads. And under the continued threat of a northern invasion. The Germans couldn't just freely juggle troops and supplies north and south as they pleased, to counter both threats.

Hindsight 20/20, I'm pretty sure invading southern France, followed by D-Day (instead of the other way around) would have worked out far better and with fewer casualties. But the Allied generals had no way of knowing the difficulty they would have in the Normandy hedgerows. And the significance of air superiority hadn't quite fully registered in their heads yet.
 
Concerning the hedgerows, many historians chalk this up as an unexplicable failure of Allied intelligence. How they missed that this would be excellent defensive terrain is amazing.

You may be right about the southern invasion. Hard to say. The logistical tail behind it as a primary invasion sight were probably daunting. Cross channel v. all the way around Spain.
 
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 must be joking or very ignorant.
I voted Italy but on reflection could have voted France.
[dance] :beer: [dance]
 
, I'm pretty sure invading southern France, followed by D-Day (instead of the other way around) would have worked out far better and with fewer casualties.

I agree with the agreement that the defences in southern France were light and probably would have been easier to defeat. However you must remember the problems with an amphbitious assault. The reason the Germans thought D-Day would be lauched on Calsis from Dover was because of the short distance between the two (and no doubt you already knew that). Even would the Germans discovered some pretty hard evidence for the allied attack on Normandy they dismissed it because of the persils of such an invasion. D-Day and other such invasions need lots of men, air superioty and naval superioty to succeed. This is because the soldiers in the boats are sitting ducks. So the theory goes that even with all of the above you should miminise the amount of time the soldiers are in the water, and so take the quickest crossing. The Germans remember still had some aircraft and U-Boats so could have taken out a significant number of troops if properly prepared. So I suggest the Africa-France crossing is a lot harder than you may think.
 
The French! The Bloody French!! The Damn French!

(Worse than the Italians, if you ask me, because...)

-They declare war to save Poland, then do nothing.
-When the Germans invade, they totally screw things up despite superior forces
-They promptly surrender - and then conduct themselves in the way that offers the best possible advantages for the invader
-The Free French govt. - e.g. De Gaulle and his crew - then proceed to make life hell for the Allied liberators
(This does not apply to troops on the ground, incidentally)
-When they do get liberated, what happens?
1) They take credit for their own liberation
2) They then walk out of NATO, which was designed in part to save the ass of countries like theirs.

Bastards.
 
Don't hide your true feeling Richard, tell us how you really feel.;)

But seriously, I'd love to see someone from France discuss the points above.
 
he French are a bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys. They suck, period.
 
The poll results look about right to me - the Eyeties were without doubt a total liability for the Germans.

Also good to see that the worth of the (then) British Commonwealth is reflected - countries like New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and South Africa committed massive amounts of fighting men and supplies (relative to their populations), and also fought with great distinction. Rommel - in frustration at his lack of effective manpower once said "Give me 1000 Maori bayonets and I'll take Cairo" - in deference to the ferocity of the New Zealand infantry fighting in North Africa.

Indeed - Mr Churchill is not well venerated in these shaky isles - he would have been hung for treason given half a chance. I feel that Britain would have been stuffed without the contributions of her Commonwealth allies. But we wouldn't go through that for them again. No frickin way.:(

P.S. enjoying the cricket 1-day series!! :lol:
 
Originally posted by andyo
he French are a bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys. They suck, period.

Napoleon certainly did a fine job of thrashing the collective arse of most of Europe, though.

Heh.

And without them, The US probably wouldn't exist.
 
I feel that Britain would have been stuffed without the contributions of her Commonwealth allies. But we wouldn't go through that for them again. No frickin way.

I may be mistaken but wasn't Australia in danger of being invaded by Japan at one time during WWII, was it the Alllies who helped them out? Also I wonder if Australia would be so good at cricket if they have been invaded by the Axis because that what would have happened in Britain and the rest of Europe was defeated.
 
Originally posted by MrPresident


I may be mistaken but wasn't Australia in danger of being invaded by Japan at one time during WWII, was it the Alllies who helped them out?

I'm not sure why you've singled out Australia given that you've quoted a Kiwi who was referring to a number of Commonwealth countries. And you are mistaken to a certain degree. It was primarily the Americans that gave the greatest assistance to Australia.

I think most Australians were whole heartedly in support of sending tens of thousands of airmen, infantry and sailors to the defence of Britain and her interests in the middle east. Although this was in part because we were assured by the British that Singapore was impregnable and we were promised British assistance if the Japanese attacked.

The British contribution to the defence of Australia was negligible, which was to be expected given that she was still fighting for her life in Europe, North Africa and Burma.

Of course the defence of Malaya and Singapore could be viewed as the forward defence of Australia. Although you could hardly claim that example of British bungling as helping in the defence of Australia - it made matters much worse.

And then there is Churchill's efforts to divert Australian troops returning from the Middle East to fight in Burma rather than contribute to the defence of Australia - fortunately the Australian Prime Minister over-ruled him.

The Japanese planned to isolate Australia initially, rather than invade it, and the naval victories at the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway and Australian forces fighting in New Guinea along the Kokoda trail and at Milne Bay stopped the Japanese from achieving this.




Also I wonder if Australia would be so good at cricket if they have been invaded by the Axis because that what would have happened in Britain and the rest of Europe was defeated.


And as for cricket Australia would still be thrashing England, it's just that our cricketer's names would now have a nipponese flavour and England's teutonic. :lol:
 
I'm not sure why you've singled out Australia
It was mianly because I couldn't think of the name for the region, which I think I have worked out...Oceania? (spelling may not be correct).
It was primarily the Americans that gave the greatest assistance to Australia.
Unless I'm mistaken America was part of the Allies, the very same Allies I mentioned with regard to the helping out of Australia & co.
And as for cricket Australia would still be thrashing England, it's just that our cricketer's names would now have a nipponese flavour and England's teutonic.
I am not so sure you would be beating us a cricket, it would probably be football instead......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom