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 MrPresident
Actually this is completely wrong. There was period in the war were Britain was the only nation fighting the axis. The Soviet Union had made peace with Hitler and the US had not yet been attacked. I admit that Germany was preparing for the Russian invasion but 6 months was more than enough to conquer most of Europe.

But you're missing the point - Hitler was, mistakenly, never really concerned about Britain in the same way he was about The USSR. Britain didn't feature in his grand short term war and ideological plan, whereas the USSR did in Lebansraum.

In the period you describe, Hitler was both fighting Britain and yet he wasn't. He had little concern with actually conquering Britain, and was merely damaging it (or at least attempting to), rather than actually massing his forces to attack it.

Again, I can only stress that if Hitler had mustered the entire material and resource power of mainland Europe against it in a concentrated attack, Britain wouldn't have lasted long. Fortunately, he never did.

The main problem would have been securing a way to move troops onto The British mainland. However, once this was established, Britain would have been finished. Consider: it took until around 1943 before Britain could properley re-group and rebuild it's armed capacity before D-Day.

Originally posted by MrPresident
It has been proven that there was a game resembling football played in England in the 14th century. Admittely it doesn't have any of the modern rules but it was football.

This is a rather moot point: I assume people have been kicking balls about since the year dot.
 
In the period you describe, Hitler was both fighting Britain and yet he wasn't. He had little concern with actually conquering Britain, and was merely damaging it (or at least attempting to), rather than actually massing his forces to attack it
Im sorry but you are wrong Hitler had made plans to invade Britain. The only reason he didn't try an invasion was because he lost the battle of Britain. You can't cross the channel with an invasion force if you don't have air superoity and Hitler never did. I have already admitted that Hitler was concerned with USSR and was building up resources for that invasion.
 
This is a rather moot point: I assume people have been kicking balls about since the year dot.

There is a difference between kicking a ball around and the game of football. And it has been proven that the game (it did have rules) played in the 14th century was the forerunner of today's football. It is like Rugby and American football, both sports throw a ball around but one definitely came from the other (American football from Rugby).
 
Originally posted by MrPresident
Im sorry but you are wrong Hitler had made plans to invade Britain. The only reason he didn't try an invasion was because he lost the battle of Britain.

But you originally said:

"No German's biggest mistake was thinking 6 months was enough to conquer Britain."

Now, my point was that Germany never fully commited itself to conquering Britain. In that six months, it was hoping that it could possibly subjugate Britain, however, it would be no great concern if it did not. Hitler felt he had bigger fish to fry in the form of The USSR.

If Hitler had ever been fully commited to conquering Britain, heart, mind, and soul, then surely he would have postponed the invasion of The USSR until Britain was completely subjugated? (Which, in time, it would have been) However, he did not.

That simple fact completely obliterates the idea that Hitler felt he had to conquer Britain as a matter of strategic urgency. His ideological blindness ruled against even considering it.

Originally posted by MrPresident
There is a difference between kicking a ball around and the game of football. And it has been proven that the game (it did have rules) played in the 14th century was the forerunner of today's football.

Evidence please.
 
Which, in time, it would have been

I am sorry if this sounds like an Englishman defending his country in spite of the facts but you can not say for certain that Britain would have been conquered. I accept that Hitler thought it was his ideological duty to defeat the Soviets and put a lot more effort into that. There is also the fact that Hitler had to defeat the Soviets to get to the Caupasian and its vital oil supplies. However to invade Britain Hitler needed air superioty and he never got this. This may have been to Hitler and his bad decisions (to bomb the cities and not the airfields) or due to his pre-occupation with the Eastern front but he was never in a realistic position to invade Britain.
 
Originally posted by MrPresident
I am sorry if this sounds like an Englishman defending his country in spite of the facts...

I find it impossible to seriously argue that if Hitler had:

A) had long term success in The USSR campaign

or

B) had not undertaken the attack on The USSR, or at least delayed it,

That Britain would have really been able to survive for an extended length of time.

In spite of the rhetoric, the facts don't seem to support the claim that Britain could have gone on in the face of Germany for a long period of time in such a scenario. It was loosing the battle of the Atlantic, and Hitler would have eventually strangled it into submission. He would have slowly been able to rebuild the air force, and Britain would have eventually gone the same way as France.

BTW, I am English too.
 
Before I answer your post I would like to say that I accept that Britain probably would have fallen eventfully but what I am saying is that there are too many variable factors to state that so comphensively.
It was loosing the battle of the Atlantic
Yes Britain was loosing the battle of the Atlantic, however during the war there was a development in a ship's defensive equipment that would have mean that this situation could have been reversed. For example the development of more efficient sonar, depth charges and the cracking of the German naval code by the British.

Britain would have eventually gone the same way as France
The France gave up without a real fight and there resistance movement while important was hardly a giant problem for the Germans. The British on the other hand would have fought the German everywhere they could. See churchill's famous speech on the matter. The German would have found it a lot harder to conquer the British than the France (again sorry if this sounds like an Englishman being nationalistic but it is true).
 
The France gave up without a real fight and there resistance movement while important was hardly a giant problem for the Germans. The British on the other hand would have fought the German everywhere they could. See churchill's famous speech on the matter. The German would have found it a lot harder to conquer the British than the France (again sorry if this sounds like an Englishman being nationalistic but it is true).

Hard to imagine that it could have been easier, that;s for sure. On the other hand, a great speach does not mean that if invaded and conquered the people would have resisted bitterly, or that the armed forces would have kept fighting to the last. That is a question that can only be answered if the situation occurs. This is not to say they wouldn't only that we can't know for certain.
 
Wow, found a new smilie... :satan:

I hate to play devil's advocate :satan: but there is a historical comparison. A lot of research has been done on how the English in the occupied channel islands behaved, and they were for the most part docile and "law-abiding," with the nazis more or less moving in where the central government once was.

Personally, though, I think the Scots would have kicked SS ass clear back to the Wash.

(and I actually beleive that the British would have resisted furiously, but I thought the point should be made).
 
I voted 'other' for the Soviet Union. Yes, the people living under Stalin paid the price of the war but Josef was in on the Polish attack from the get go. He didn't do the Allies any good by conspiring with Adolph. Then Franklin had to loan Josef his garden hose to keep Russia from burning down...
 
Originally posted by donsig
I voted 'other' for the Soviet Union. Yes, the people living under Stalin paid the price of the war but Josef was in on the Polish attack from the get go. He didn't do the Allies any good by conspiring with Adolph. Then Franklin had to loan Josef his garden hose to keep Russia from burning down...

Stalin made the Non-aggression pact with Hitler because he felt abandonded by the West when ignored (not even invited) at Munich in 1938. At that point, he felt it was the best deal he could get.

Also, he could get away from Hitler for attacking Finland :mad: :die!:
 
Yes, the people living under Stalin paid the price of the war

You do know that of all the countries fighting in WWII the Soviet Union loss the most soldiers. They paid more than their fair share of the cost of the war. The Allies were able to delay the D-Day invasions because the Germans were busy fighting on the Eastern front. The Battle Of Stalingrad was perhaps the turning point in the European war. Also although the Russians didn't do much fighting in Asia their declaration of war on the Japan may have tipped the Emperor into surrendering (I know the Atomic bomb was important but remember the Japanese people were prepared to fight on despite two being dropped). So remember that the Soviets were just as important in defeating Hitler and any other ally.
 
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

Not Australia's fault that they couldn't convince the Japanese to bomb them more. On the other hand, France is France's fault. The French regularly outfrench themselves; and they do it conciously.
 
Re the French:

I think that Mark Twain said it best.

"The only thing that a Frenchman values more than dying for his country, is making another Frenchman die for his country."

(And he said that in the 19th century, before either of the world wars. Perceptive man, Mr. Clemens.)
 
Originally posted by Panda


Stalin made the Non-aggression pact with Hitler because he felt abandonded by the West when ignored (not even invited) at Munich in 1938. At that point, he felt it was the best deal he could get.

Well actually Stalin was in negotiation with both Hitler and with the Allies prior to making his choice. By many historical accounts, the reason Stalin chose his natural enemy in Germany as a short term partner was because Hitler had so much more to offer.

Compare the Allies: Get a bunch of your guys killed so that we don't have to stand alone.

to

Hitler: Let's carve Poland in two, and I'll let you have Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, as well as tacit approval of the attack on Finland.

Stalin knew full well what he was doing, and was arrogant enough to not care what the west did. He felt they were decadent capitalist societies that would fall soon enough.

The ass kicking his army took attacking Finland (before simply overwhelming the valiant Finn's with sheer numbers), was almost as bad as the Italian "offensive" into southern France. But that small war led to many follow on events including reinforing Hitler's view of the Russian military being easily beaten.
 
Originally posted by Hamlet
The USSR won the war for the allies. I believe around 75% or more of divisions fielded by Germany were destroyed by The USSR.

Well, yes. I don't think anyone disputes this. But you could also argue that the West won the war for the USSR. I suspect that Germany could have dealt a much more severe blow to the Soviets if so much of its military strength hadn't been tied up in occupying Western Europe and defending against the Allies.
 
Stalin could have done something about Hitler BEFORE Sept. 1939. Any of you stop to think that if Stalin hadn't agreed to Hitler's 'let's split up Poland' idea then Hitler might not have attacked Poland? Adolph sucked Josef right in on that one. What do think would have happened if Stalin told Hitler to stay out of Poland or fight Russia?
Sure, Russia killed off alot of German divisions but would they have been able to do so without Lend Lease? WWII was an Allied victory and if you take away any of the big 3 you take away the victory.

Of course Stalin is not the only one that did not stand up to Hitler. There was Chamberlain in '38 and of course us here in the US tried ignoring it all for a long time.
 
Of course Stalin is not the only one that did not stand up to Hitler.
Why would Stalin even want to stand up to Hitler? Stalin was busy with his "socialism in one country" and trying to kill anyone who he thought was his enemy. It made fair more sense to make a deal with Hitler and gain half of Poland than to attack him for the other half. If you think Stalin should have stood up to Hitler because of moral reasons then remember than Stalin was a mass-murderer too.
There was Chamberlain in '38 and of course us here in the US tried ignoring it all for a long time.
The reason Britain and France didn't stand up to Hitler till Poland was because they were trying to avoid a world war. Only 20 years ago there had been the most bloodiest war the world had ever seen (they called it the war to end all wars). I think you can appreciate if the politicans of the day tried at all costs to avoid a future world war. The US, like in WWI, considered it a European affair. In his farewell George Washington had warned against getting entailed in European affairs. Thankfully President Roosevelt knew that something had to be done to help (even if it was illegal).
 
Italy was probably the most useless, from an Axis standpoint.

They were very helpfull to the allies, by being so inept. :D

The Czechs actually wanted to fight in 1938, France and the UK sold them out to the Nazis, for continued peace. From reading, Czech military strength at the time was impressive. They had mountains to defend from, and were willing to fight.

The LowCountries, massively outnumbered, fought with amazing tenacity, and held up the Germans untill the French and Brits pulled back.

France, well, lets just say they were "mentaly unprepared" for it.
They had no will to fight, and poor tactics.

The Poles also fought well, but were hopelessly outnumbered and outflanked. Germans on 3 sides and Russians behind. The outcome was preordained.

The Chinese sacrificed heavily in the long war with Japan, I would not call them useless. They fought with what little they had.

I recall reading about a dam that the Chinese busted open to slow the Japanese advance, that killed 100,000 of their own people, making a million homeless. Amazing.

When you dont have guns, you have to do something, I guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom