Who was the most useless nation during WWII?
- Thread starter MrPresident
- Start date
- Status
Mîtiu Ioan
Deity
But Republic or Ireland wasn't a neutral country during the war like Switerland ??
Regards
aska26
Chieftain
This country has strategicaly located on each side. She must use it for her advantage and the world in th WW2 days are struggling to live while this nation enjoys it nuetrality while other nations suffers I have a probability that this nation that it will end its nuetrality by WW3 or by an incident that does n ot require nuetrality
Kanadees
Chieftain
Germany would have won without the Ity's.
aska26
Chieftain
Germany if in proper time thay strike they would be won, If Hitler liste o his advisers to let 10 yrs past in order to win they would be the masters of Europe
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
I don't think Hitler could have lasted 10 years. He was forced into war because of the economic problems facing Germany after a far to rapid rearmanent. Also Hitler was supported mainly due to his expansionist and dynamic foreign policy. So Hitler needed to expand and at a point the Allies would not be prepared to appease him, i.e. Poland. So war was inevitable, the size of the war was not. Hitler wanted a series of short wars which possibly Germany could have dealt with. Also it should be mentioned that Hitler estimated (in the Hossback Memorandum) that Germany would be at full strength in 1941-42 and the Allies would be a full strength in 1943-44. So if Hitler thought he had to strike quickly to have a chance of winning any European war.
Mîtiu Ioan
Deity
IMHO the only way for Germany to win the war would be to turn the "anihilation" war in the East in a war against Stalin and commies. Many ( if not most ) of the russians would join to this war in German side. In fact gen Vlasov for ex. recruted an army of 100.000 soldiers. This people would fight to death to save their contry from a bloody tyran la Stalin.
A "White Russia" well treated after this short war will be the best allied of Germany against the U.K. and U.S. !!
But - the Germany could win in this way - Hitler never, because he was a lunatic man which want Lebensraum in East, not a rally geopolitical analysts.
Regards
A "White Russia" well treated after this short war will be the best allied of Germany against the U.K. and U.S. !!
But - the Germany could win in this way - Hitler never, because he was a lunatic man which want Lebensraum in East, not a rally geopolitical analysts.
Regards
EdwardTking
Deity
"I don't think Hitler could have lasted 10 years."
He actually lasted 12 years; 1933 to 1945
"He was forced into war.."
Nobody forced him into war; he chose war!
Please do not give support to Nazi apologists here.
"...because of the economic problems facing
Germany after a far to rapid rearmanent. "
The economics problems of the depresssion
and of war are far worse than of re-arnament."
Arguably re-arnement by introducing government
spending helped Germany, cf Rooseveld public works
"Also Hitler was supported mainly due to his
expansionist and dynamic foreign policy. "
He was permitted to:
* reoccupy Rhineland
* takeover Austria
* take over parts of Czechoslovakia with Germans
* host Olympics
His supporters had no reason to complain.
"So Hitler needed to expand and at a point the Allies
would not be prepared to appease him, i.e. Poland."
German banking, industry & science could have very
easily dominated Eastern europe with the consent
of the government and peoples of those countries.
Skilled Germans would have been very welcome.
The eastern europeans were scared of the communists.
There was just no need to invade to acquire living space.
"So war was inevitable..."
Only because of Hitler's (and Mussolini's) inherent evil nature.
Stalin was initially content for communism in one country;
Franco content to stay in Spain, Britain with its empire.
"..size of the war was not. "
The nature of meglomaniac adventurers like Hitler is that
their empires and wars expand until they are:
(a) assassinated (Caesar),
(b) die (Genghis Khan)
(c) defeated (Hitler, Mussolini & Napoleon)
(d) stale mated (Stalin)
(e) conquer world (no one yet)
Initiating a war is one thing, winning it another,
determining its length quite improbable indeed!
The size of the war was not really unpredictable.
It is the nature of dictators to frighten others and thereby
find that they are not offered peace after an intitial victory
and themselves create the alliance against them.
"Hitler wanted a series of short wars which
possibly Germany could have dealt with."
So why should he get what he wanted?
"Also it should be mentioned that Hitler estimated
(in the Hossback Memorandum) that Germany would
be at full strength in 1941-42 and the Allies would
be a full strength in 1943-44. So if Hitler thought he
had to strike quickly to have a chance of winning any
European war."
Actually Germans were stronger in 1943/1944 in terms
of arnaments production than in 1941/1942. Hitler was
impatient and wanted a war. Many of his comments were
made because he wished to trick others into willingly
supporting him; not because he actually believed them.
He actually lasted 12 years; 1933 to 1945
"He was forced into war.."
Nobody forced him into war; he chose war!
Please do not give support to Nazi apologists here.
"...because of the economic problems facing
Germany after a far to rapid rearmanent. "
The economics problems of the depresssion
and of war are far worse than of re-arnament."
Arguably re-arnement by introducing government
spending helped Germany, cf Rooseveld public works
"Also Hitler was supported mainly due to his
expansionist and dynamic foreign policy. "
He was permitted to:
* reoccupy Rhineland
* takeover Austria
* take over parts of Czechoslovakia with Germans
* host Olympics
His supporters had no reason to complain.
"So Hitler needed to expand and at a point the Allies
would not be prepared to appease him, i.e. Poland."
German banking, industry & science could have very
easily dominated Eastern europe with the consent
of the government and peoples of those countries.
Skilled Germans would have been very welcome.
The eastern europeans were scared of the communists.
There was just no need to invade to acquire living space.
"So war was inevitable..."
Only because of Hitler's (and Mussolini's) inherent evil nature.
Stalin was initially content for communism in one country;
Franco content to stay in Spain, Britain with its empire.
"..size of the war was not. "
The nature of meglomaniac adventurers like Hitler is that
their empires and wars expand until they are:
(a) assassinated (Caesar),
(b) die (Genghis Khan)
(c) defeated (Hitler, Mussolini & Napoleon)
(d) stale mated (Stalin)
(e) conquer world (no one yet)
Initiating a war is one thing, winning it another,
determining its length quite improbable indeed!
The size of the war was not really unpredictable.
It is the nature of dictators to frighten others and thereby
find that they are not offered peace after an intitial victory
and themselves create the alliance against them.
"Hitler wanted a series of short wars which
possibly Germany could have dealt with."
So why should he get what he wanted?
"Also it should be mentioned that Hitler estimated
(in the Hossback Memorandum) that Germany would
be at full strength in 1941-42 and the Allies would
be a full strength in 1943-44. So if Hitler thought he
had to strike quickly to have a chance of winning any
European war."
Actually Germans were stronger in 1943/1944 in terms
of arnaments production than in 1941/1942. Hitler was
impatient and wanted a war. Many of his comments were
made because he wished to trick others into willingly
supporting him; not because he actually believed them.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
I meant another 10 years.
I didn't mean he was forced into war. I meant he was forced into war at that early stage. The overheating German economy was being noticed by the citizens and so he needed a distraction.
First of all, the worst of the depression in Germany was over by the time Hitler came to power. I agree that a limited rearmament probably did help the German industry. However the scale of Hitler's rearmament was disasterous. It led to an economic boom that caused inflation and would led to another recession, possibly worst than the great depression.
Yes there was no need to invade. However Hitler had always stated he wanted living space for Germany, its in Mein Kampf.
This is way too simplified and I don't think Mussolini was inherently evil, the only reason he joined WWII was because he thought Germany already had it won and he wanted terroritorial gains. World in Europe was inevitable when Hitler came to power mainly because Hitler wanted one. There is a debate as to whether he wanted one with countries like Britain, however it is certain he saw it as Germany's destiny to fight a war to the death with Communist Russia. So war was inevitable not due to Hitler's evil nature but due to his strong-held beliefs.
Who said he should?
Could this be due to the fact that Germany was fighting full-scale wars on two fronts? If demand increases then so does supply.
Thats true for propaganda. However the Hossbach memorandum was never released to the German public. It was an internal document. So I don't see how it was supposed to trick others into supporting others. Also I tend to believe that people aren't tricked into believing things they don't want to believe. Propaganda is most effective when it is reinforcing existing beliefs.
Rodgers
Following YOUR child home
From a final outcomes point of view, could you say Britain was the most useless?
1939 - we've got it all :- Huge Empire, loaded, peace etc
1940 - massive defeat in Europe - but still opportunity to keep it all offered by Germans if we make peace.
1945 - ultimate victory, triumph etc.
1970 - most of Empire gone, bankrupt, Europe and just about everyone else who took part doing very nicely thank you.
Ignoring the moral imperative to fight facism etc - I'm not sure we did very well at all really.
1939 - we've got it all :- Huge Empire, loaded, peace etc
1940 - massive defeat in Europe - but still opportunity to keep it all offered by Germans if we make peace.
1945 - ultimate victory, triumph etc.
1970 - most of Empire gone, bankrupt, Europe and just about everyone else who took part doing very nicely thank you.
Ignoring the moral imperative to fight facism etc - I'm not sure we did very well at all really.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
We would have lost the empire anyway. The war probably just speeded things up a little. Anyway, the result was very benefitical to Britain. A free Europe along democratic lines compared with a Nazi Germany that would when strong enough attack Britain.
aska26
Chieftain
I mean If he wait 4 10 yrs to prepare lke advisors said to him they would win or win on USSR and UK
aska26
Chieftain
Why did Hitler did not learn that his attack on winter sdeason on USSR would be a failure by Great Russian Winter and failed to defeat UK
Charles XII
Chieftain
Here are my thoughts.
Italy: Was a sore spot for the germans not only for their military ineffectiveness but for their lack of raw matierals which forced germany to supply them whith vitally needed oil, magnesium, rubber etc.
Sweden: Despite being under treat of axis invasion did what it could for the allied war effort smuggling them vitally needed ball bearings in 1940 and cutting off all shipments of ore to germany by early'44.
Switzerland: This county was far from useless giving germany a safe place to store plunder and turning in thousands of Jews, Gypsies and other unwanteds to the germans and an immenient death.
Ire: Was coming out of a period of utter turmoil and could hardly be expected to fight a war.
When all is considerd I say that the US was the most useless country of the war, because, they made the worst military blunders of the war like their failure to counter operation Drumbeat and the japanese offensive of '42.
Also, despite their massive econamic reserves they did not take the roll they could have not fully mobilising till '44 and only useing a small portion of their available manpower. They did not come out of the war with nearly as large a deat as the comonwealth countries, did not help their allies with economic aid and took fewer casualties per capita than almost every other country involved.
To add to this they waited for germany to declare war on them several weeks after Pearl Harbor.
I do not see why they were not an option in the poll.
Nobody forced him into war; he chose war!
In way this is true, the allies had given him and the german people no reason to believe he couldn't get away with an invasion of poland.
Hitler should have been taken out during the sudentenland crises before his victories allowed him to entrench his position with a loyal public and ashamed generals who were no longer wiling to oppose Hitler.
Italy: Was a sore spot for the germans not only for their military ineffectiveness but for their lack of raw matierals which forced germany to supply them whith vitally needed oil, magnesium, rubber etc.
Sweden: Despite being under treat of axis invasion did what it could for the allied war effort smuggling them vitally needed ball bearings in 1940 and cutting off all shipments of ore to germany by early'44.
Switzerland: This county was far from useless giving germany a safe place to store plunder and turning in thousands of Jews, Gypsies and other unwanteds to the germans and an immenient death.
Ire: Was coming out of a period of utter turmoil and could hardly be expected to fight a war.
When all is considerd I say that the US was the most useless country of the war, because, they made the worst military blunders of the war like their failure to counter operation Drumbeat and the japanese offensive of '42.
Also, despite their massive econamic reserves they did not take the roll they could have not fully mobilising till '44 and only useing a small portion of their available manpower. They did not come out of the war with nearly as large a deat as the comonwealth countries, did not help their allies with economic aid and took fewer casualties per capita than almost every other country involved.
To add to this they waited for germany to declare war on them several weeks after Pearl Harbor.
I do not see why they were not an option in the poll.
Nobody forced him into war; he chose war!
In way this is true, the allies had given him and the german people no reason to believe he couldn't get away with an invasion of poland.
Hitler should have been taken out during the sudentenland crises before his victories allowed him to entrench his position with a loyal public and ashamed generals who were no longer wiling to oppose Hitler.
Damien
Emperor
Read what i've written on the thread called "vote per internet"(in OT).
Switzerland protected its borders,placed explosives in its tunnels,offered refuge to 300,000 jews.Neutrality is in the constitution.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
Charles XII, I cannot see why you think America was the most useless nation. Sure they could have done more and sure they could have done it sooner. But that doesn't mean that what they did was useless. They supplied Britain and Russia with tremedous amounts of supplies which were essential to the war effort. They provided millions of men who sacrified their lives fighting in the European war which America really didn't need to fight. To call them useless when you dismiss countries such as Italy or Sweden is amazing. Also you completely missed out the French who I consider one of the most (after Italy of course) nations of WWII.
Homie
Anti-Lefty
It is wrong to have Switzerland in this poll, they were neutral during the entire war. They were not a part of it and thus not one of the most useless civilizations in ww2.
knowltok2
Deity
Originally posted by Charles XII
When all is considerd I say that the US was the most useless country of the war, because, they made the worst military blunders of the war like their failure to counter operation Drumbeat and the japanese offensive of '42.
Worst Military blunders of the war? Are we talking about the same war here? I always thought that honor went to Hitler and Germany first. Invading Russia comes to mind. Japan comes in a strong second, and the Aussies make a pretty good case against Churchill. The French can also rank pretty high on the list when it comes to blunders.
Also, despite their massive econamic reserves they did not take the roll they could have not fully mobilising till '44 and only useing a small portion of their available manpower.
Not fully mobilizing? It isn't a light switch you know. When your war starts basically in 1942, two years isn't too bad. Small portion of manpower? There are only so many troops you can train, equip and field at once. I can't think of any serious operations that were postponed or cancelled due to lack of manpower. Landing craft, fuel, inabilty to dictate weather and tides, yes, but manpower, no.
They did not come out of the war with nearly as large a deat as the comonwealth countries
Who exactly were we supposed to borrow from? South America wasn't exactly brimming with capital.
did not help their allies with economic aid
Okay now this is utterly false. Lend-Lease comes to mind, and in the final analysis, much of it became Lend-Give. After the war there was a little thing called the Marshall Plan.
and took fewer casualties per capita than almost every other country involved.
Involved for a shorter time. Wickedly manipulated geography to put their country behind two oceans, beyond the range of bombers.
To add to this they waited for germany to declare war on them several weeks after Pearl Harbor.
Try days. Let's see, no attack on America, no attack on nations America has a treaty with. America already at war on the other side of the world. I can't imagine why declaring war on Germany wasn't done before declaring war on Japan.
I do not see why they were not an option in the poll.
Gee, no clue.
Where do you get your 'facts' from?
andycapp
Grumpy Old Griper
This thread has consistently been used as a vehicle to troll and flame and denigrate various nations and their peoples - and now we have the proposition that the US was "the most useless nation of WWII".
This does not deserve serious response and indeed the proposition that there was a "most useless nation of WWII" hardly rates as an intelligent discussion point in what is supposed to be a forum for genuine and intelligent debate about history.
I understand your annoyance knowltok, however this cheap troll does not deserve further response. Those nations that sacrificed their men and women to defeat the evils of Nazism, Fascism and Japanese Imperialism don't deserve this slur.
This does not deserve serious response and indeed the proposition that there was a "most useless nation of WWII" hardly rates as an intelligent discussion point in what is supposed to be a forum for genuine and intelligent debate about history.
I understand your annoyance knowltok, however this cheap troll does not deserve further response. Those nations that sacrificed their men and women to defeat the evils of Nazism, Fascism and Japanese Imperialism don't deserve this slur.
Case
The horror, the horror
I agree. IMO this thread should be closed.
- Status
Similar threads
