In which World War 2 army you should have fought?

What if there were secret plans and an alien craft on the cruiser?

Government conspiracy.

@CWO:

@Narvik:

I spent some of my military service up there in the 80ties, and cant belive how Churchill in 1940 would think it was even remotely possible to walk 50 000 Brits over the mountain with no skies and no supply and no winter gear.

Churchill had a track record of cooking up grandiose flanking operations that looked impressive on maps but which were of dubious practical value, and a bad habit of giving a completely inadequate amount of thought to their operational and logistical details.  Gallipoli in WWI is the most notorious example, and the 1940 British invasion of Norway had many of the same problems: it was planned too quickly and too superficially, and like Gallipoli it was based on the premise that an amphibious invasion can be improvised by basically just loading a bunch of troops onto standard Royal Navy warships and throwing them at an enemy coastline.  As the Americans eventually learned in the Pacific, successful amphibious operations require months of careful planning and training, lots of specialized equipment, and close inter-service cooperation.  So it doesn’t surprise me that Churchill wouldn’t have bothered considering the practicality of marching several divisions of British troops through Norway’s mountains, in winter, with no special training or equipment.  Another place where he made this mistake was Italy, which was another of his pet flanking operation concepts.  His argument that Italy was the “soft underbelly of the crocodile” falls apart when you look at a topographical map of the Italian peninsula: it’s ideal country for a defender because it basically consists of narrow coastal plains (defilades in military parlance) flanking a rugged mountainous interior.  And to (literally) top it all off: where would the invading Allies have ended up if they had managed to fight all the way up to the top of the Italian boot?  In the Alps.

I think you make some very good points.

But the invasion of Africa was to secure Britains fuel links to the middle east.
Also I believe his intention was to invade Greece.

I do believe that in some ways the invasion of Greece would make some sense
as it could help with the Russians more readily once the fronts meet up.
Also a third of Germany’s oil comes from the Romanian town (or city) of Polesti

Thanks for the reply, I’m trying to improve with each drawing.

@Axistiger13:

Another idea: What if they prepared the attack, but did not launch it?

Problem with this Axistiger, is that this would have been bad for morale. You cannot tell someone(the Germans) the are better than someone else(the Russians) then say: we cannot beat them. The Germans did believe they could best the enemy.
Otherwise, I think it is a great idea.

Worsham: I have been thinking on this, but have not been able to get out my maps. ( Have been busy with Gettysburg!).
Problem with withdrawing from the salient, apart from the morale thing again, is that Kharkov looms large. It cannot be easily abandoned after the great campaign to retake it.
I believe there could have been a shortening of the Southern salient as long as it did not compromise Kharkov.
Building up a reserve and not throwing tanks at minefields and anti-tank emplacements, is definitely the way to go. The Germans always cost the Russians dear when able to do this. (Both 42 Kharkov and 43 come to mind.)
And Manstein was the man to do it. Sacking him was such a bad move by Hitler.

@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.

The M14/41 gets my vote. Not the best tank by any means, but it’s just plain cool.

Is the version of All Quiet on the Western Front from 1979 film with Richard Thomas and Ernest Borgnine the version that you guys are talking about?

@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.