In which World War 2 army you should have fought?

@Axistiger13:

Britain and France planned to send a expeditionary force to finland, which would bring them to war with both germany and the USSR. If they did send a expeditionary force, how would the Winter War end? and also, how would the outside world (mainly japan and the US) react?

Britain’s expeditionary forces to Norway in 1940 and Greece in 1941 were humiliating failures that ended with Dunkirk-style evacuations (Dunkirk itself being the evacuation of another British expeditionary force), so I doubt that sending a Franco-British expeditionary force to Finland in 1939 would have been of much military help to the Finns against the Russians.  What makes this scenario interesting, however, is that it might have scrambled the landscape of political alliances in various ways, with unpredictable consequences for the rest of the war.  This was a time when alliances were still in flux – one example being Japan’s angry reaction to the signature in August 1939 of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact by Germany, which had co-signed with Japan the Anti-Comintern Pact of 1936.  Japan had been defeated by Zhukov at Khalkhin Gol a few days before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed, so it was furious to see Germany sign a non-aggression treaty with Russia.  (Ironically, Japan did precisely the same thing in April 1941, seven months after the signing of the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy.)

Ships come with a crew and to compare ships has nothing to do with crews and also has nothing to so with comparing SHIPS.  I’m glad you agree as well!

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

And this site has done something similar, (which obviously does not compare crews because this is a comparison of ships) concluded rightfully that Iowa class BB is the best ship all around based on all basic stats.

@ABWorsham:

You guys have high regards for the Italian Armies.

The Italian war effort can be described as a failure. Italy had only one main front to fight taking on enemies that have many fronts to contend with. The battles of 1915-17 showsed little progress, 1917 the rout of Caporetto.

Only when Austria-Hungary was at the point of revolution could the Italian Armies have large sucess.

I agree.  But the Italians had more divisions and ships engaged with the enemy at any one time than the USA had during the entire conflict.

You also have to consider that the “Alpine Front” was one of the most difficult and geographically challenging of the entire war.

But I had a post here about moving into the Sahara. Do you know who took them off? Anyway those French SBG raids are kill lol

@SilverBullet:

yeah, if germany never attacked russia, england woulda fell, hitler just didnt have the patience to wait england out and had 2 use all his pretty toys and the only target left for his tanks was russia. and germany still had a small chance to win even after they attacked russia, but lets face it, hitler wasnt a general and he made mistakes that say, rommel or other generals wouldnt have made.

Its not that easy, Germany did not have the Oil, Raw Materials, and Food Stuffs to sustain itself for a long war.  Russia had sufficent quantities of all 3.  Germany invaded Russia when it did cause of economic neccesity.  Also, cause of the massive industrial/military advancements in the Soviet Union after the disaster in Finand, if Germany waited another year or 2, the Russian military would of been strong enough to handle Germany’s.

I think this was a very key consideration for the UK, Germany, Russia and Japan:

@KurtGodel7:

However, one reason for Hitler’s impatience in invading the Soviet Union was the British food blockade of Germany; and the resulting starvation in German-held lands. Delaying the invasion of the Soviet Union by two years would have meant two extra years of famine conditions; especially in occupied territories and population groups assigned low or mid-level priorities for scarce, precious food calories.

Only the US and some parts of the British empire had abundant food.  The UK, Germany, (and later Japan) were squeezed by naval (or submarine) blockades.  Russia was squeezed by the vast territories taken by the Germans.  Of course I’ll grant that in the early part of the war, Germany did quite well by taking the food and supplies found in France, Belgium, Ukraine, etc.

Grizzly, you make a good point.  The Germans were never going to be able to invade the UK; but they did try to starve them.  An excess of wheat in Australia and Canada does no good for the UK if it cannot be delivered.  I guess we disagree on whether or not British hunger, lack of heating oil, etc. would have been sufficient to make them either sue for peace with Germany…If the British were hungry enough (and I think without the US merchant marine), I could see them saying screw the French, lets have a ceasefire and let the USSR and Germany fight it out.

Regarding the USSR, I once read an estimate that 7/8 of the entire Germany war effort was fought on the eastern front.  This estimate includes the forces in Norway, the battles in Africa and the Balkans, Crete, the U-boat effort, the battles in Italy, the defense of France after D-day, the V-1 and V2 and other technological weapons, etc.  The defense of France required minimal forces in the early part of the war, especially early in the war when it was obvious the UK was in no position to invade.  I don’t think this small difference would have been enough to turn the tide in the East despite the small margin of victory by the USSR during 1941 and 1942.  I even doubt Hitler would have reduced the forces occupying France at this time had the UK capitulated.

@Fishmoto37:

My favorite–They Were Expendable with Robert Montgomery and John Wayne. Has been since I was a kid and when I was a kid the Dead Sea was only sick.

Great Movie!

@Adlertag:

@Captain:

The recreation of Poland as a state was welcomed by the people living there, and they fought pretty darned hard against the German occupation.

I dont want to be negative, and are just curious more than anything, butt since you are a history teacher from New Zealand, did the Maori’s fight hard against the British occupation, or did they welcome the brits as liberators ? And how about the Aborigins in Australia, or the Zulu’s in South Africa, or the Indians in North America, or the black slaves from Africa that was sailed on british ships to their new home in U$A’s cotton fields and mines. Did all this natives fight against British exploitement, or did they recognize the brits as great liberators ? As I said, just curious. And I wont pull the string and ask if the Polish was happy to be liberated by allies in 1945. My country too was liberated by the Red Army, so of course we all are very greatful to comrade Stalin, our belowed hero.

Ok?

What point are you trying to make here?

Race Relations in New Zealand, the Treaty of Waitangi, the Kingitangi movement, Musket Wars and New Zealand wars are very complex issues. Some Maori did fight against the Europeans, but NZ was never invaded as such. It was brought into the empire with a treaty that recognized the unique status of Maori as native peoples. There have been really bad moments in NZ’s history, but work is being done to redress some of the grievances the Tangita whenua have endured in an effort to restore things that were illegally seized from Iwi in NZ. Becuase the government here recognizes the Treaty of Waitangi, Maori goups (Iwi) have legal grounds to make claims against actions that went on.

NZ is not perfect, but i fail to see what this has to do with the invasion of Poland.

Comparing those other colonial incidents above to NZ history is misguided, comparing them to the invasion of Poland is just sad.