NationStates Jolt Archive


Best Nation in WWII

Fassigen
11-06-2007, 04:18
This is probably the worst OP I have ever seen. Congrats.

Edit:
http://webpages.acs.ttu.edu/charshey/pics/ThisThreadSucks.jpg

Wow, he's cute, even with that stupid face.
Kansiov
11-06-2007, 04:19
Gonna have many many many many options LoL! :p

Ok, Best in [Military] Production(military Production), Tatics, Military Commanders. Well basically everything as long as it in under military!
New Manvir
11-06-2007, 04:20
define "best"
New Manvir
11-06-2007, 04:22
This is probably the worst OP I have ever seen. Congrats.

Edit:
http://webpages.acs.ttu.edu/charshey/pics/ThisThreadSucks.jpg

Wow, he's cute, even with that stupid face.

lol you are the OP fass....:p
Kansiov
11-06-2007, 04:30
It is Obvious that USSR had the better Manpower, Better Morale and better commanders. So thats why I voted for them, the Americans were rather slow, in Normandy, North Africa. They relied heavily on firepower and could not advance without them.
Neu Leonstein
11-06-2007, 04:39
Switzerland had them all licked.
Minaris
11-06-2007, 04:41
Switzerland had them all licked.

Never lost a single man nor a foot of land...

Can't beat that combat record.
Andaluciae
11-06-2007, 05:37
Brazil :rolleyes:

This thread is poorly designed.
Boonytopia
11-06-2007, 07:48
The Finns.
Alavamaa
11-06-2007, 07:52
It is Obvious that USSR had the better Manpower, Better Morale and better commanders. So thats why I voted for them, the Americans were rather slow, in Normandy, North Africa. They relied heavily on firepower and could not advance without them.

You learned all this from Pravda, right?
Andaras Prime
11-06-2007, 07:56
Poland, lol.
Cabra West
11-06-2007, 07:59
I guess Borneo didn't do bad...
North Calaveras
11-06-2007, 08:00
i voted for USSR because they turned the tide in the war, and didnt poland get the crap kicked out of them in a short time? no offense if your polish.
The Potato Factory
11-06-2007, 08:01
The United States.
Andaras Prime
11-06-2007, 08:02
lol, Poles, Charge those Stugs and Tigers with cavalry! ahhhh!
Dontgonearthere
11-06-2007, 08:03
Poland, lol.

Look up the Danzig Post Office on Wiki. Apparently underestimating the Polish Postal Service was a rather bad mistake.
There are also some rather entertaining accounts of Polish cavalry charging German tanks, followed by the Germans retreating in a panic because they couldnt figure out WTF was going on.
Dontgonearthere
11-06-2007, 08:09
lol, Poles, Charge those Stugs and Tigers with cavalry! ahhhh!

Sadly, neither of those existed at that point in the war. More like charge those Panzer II's with cavalry.
Considering the amount of armour on your standard Panzer II, thats not a terribly bad idea.
Kahanistan
11-06-2007, 08:17
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_the_Polish_Post_Office_in_Danzig

For those too lazy to look.

You don't mess with the Poles.
Carbandia
11-06-2007, 08:21
lol, Poles, Charge those Stugs and Tigers with cavalry! ahhhh!
Takes some serios cojones to charge a tank armed only with a cavalry carbine, and a lance. Don't you start dissing the Poles for that.
Beddgelert
11-06-2007, 08:26
I'm pretty sure the Poles never charged tanks with cavalry. Why would they when their cavalry had anti-tank guns in tow, anyway? They did use cavalry, sometimes to great effect, but that's not unusual... the US army was still developing new cavalry tactics at the time. Lucky Canada didn't decide to invade, really.
Andaras Prime
11-06-2007, 08:27
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_the_Polish_Post_Office_in_Danzig

For those too lazy to look.

You don't mess with the Poles.

Dude, they got executed.
Voxio
11-06-2007, 08:33
Viva Italia! Viva Mussolini! Viva Fascismo!
Neu Leonstein
11-06-2007, 08:35
lol, Poles, Charge those Stugs and Tigers with cavalry! ahhhh!
Actually, they were charging resting infantry. Then armoured vehicles (not tanks) came and made them run away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Krojanty

The rest is a myth.
Markeliopia
11-06-2007, 09:57
I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO VOTES FRANCE YOU ALL SUCK :headbang:[/SIZE]
Ginnoria
11-06-2007, 10:04
This is probably the worst OP I have ever seen. Congrats.

Edit:
http://webpages.acs.ttu.edu/charshey/pics/ThisThreadSucks.jpg

Wow, he's cute, even with that stupid face.

How ironic.

Though, I agree. The OP has failed to acknowledge the superior military might of Liechtenstein whatsoever in his/her poorly conceived poll.
Hamilay
11-06-2007, 10:12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_the_Polish_Post_Office_in_Danzig

For those too lazy to look.

You don't mess with the Poles.

That's awesome.

To be honest, I'd have to say Germany, if 'best' refers mostly military might. I mean, one nation managed to start a gigantic war and ravage the whole of Europe on its own. That is quite an achievement. (Italy and the like don't count. :p)
Sabote
11-06-2007, 10:15
Believe me there is a reason that no-one voted for France :sniper: (coughs vichy)
Still at least France fought the Germans from the start, not sitting on the side lines like America (again) before charging in at the end and claiming all the glory. But yes it was the Russians who really did the most, hell D-Day would of been considered a skirmish by them. Yeah the Poles were hardcore. Their fighters that joined the RAF were renowned for their ferocity and real hatred of the Nazi's and would continue dogfighting until they literally ran out of fuel, also their resistance in Warsaw rose up and fought the Germans for weeks on their own with home made weapons and ammo b4 finally being defeated because non of the allies supported them (russia refused to allow british planes supplying Warsaw to refuel on their airstrips)
I voted for Britain though, we were the only country to fight the Germans because of a principle rather than because we were attacked by them.
Ginnoria
11-06-2007, 10:16
(Italy and the like don't count. :p)

Hey, we did our part in defeating Nazi Germany. Don't knock us, capiche?
Newer Burmecia
11-06-2007, 10:26
I'm tempted to vote for the Peanut out of irony.
Altruisma
11-06-2007, 10:27
I voted the USSR, but I think would vote the Finns if it were on there. Their sparsely populated region of a few million people did after all, have the undivided attention of the entire Soviet Union, who failed to get anywhere with it, making them the only country in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact to stay independent.
Allanea
11-06-2007, 10:28
lol, Poles, Charge those Stugs and Tigers with cavalry! ahhhh!

Excetp that, well, didn't actually happen.
Soleichunn
11-06-2007, 10:49
I'd vote for Germany as my grandfather lived and worked there during WW2 (until 1940-ish).

I'd vote for Britain & Commonwealth as I live in a commonwealth country and Britain as most of my family lived there.

I deceided on U.S.A as they were the group that was the allies' supplier. Their GDP also doubled during WW2.
Callisdrun
11-06-2007, 12:08
I voted France just cause I think this topic is complete and utter idiocy.

One of the more moronic threads I've seen, really.
Allanea
11-06-2007, 12:09
I voted France just cause I think this topic is complete and utter idiocy.

One of the more moronic threads I've seen, really.

How is it moronic?
Callisdrun
11-06-2007, 12:14
How is it moronic?

Because "best" is entirely subjective. Yeah, you can argue about the best tank of the war, per se (it was the T-34/85, in my opinion), but then you get into an argument that has no end about how important that was vs. who had the best infantry arms and training of the war and how important that was vs. who had the best tacticians and who had the best logistics and blah blah blah. It's impossible to really prove any opinion and "best nation" is so ridiculously vague that it devolves into an argument over how to define "best."
Allanea
11-06-2007, 12:20
And since whne have you seen a logical argument on the Internet?


The point of the thread is to ask about people's subjective opinion.
Infinite Revolution
11-06-2007, 12:22
your poll is shit.
Neu Leonstein
11-06-2007, 12:50
I voted for Britain though, we were the only country to fight the Germans because of a principle rather than because we were attacked by them.
Yeah. Poland's independence from foreign powers.

...

Worked out well, didn't it. :p
Nipeng
11-06-2007, 13:01
Yeah. Poland's independence from foreign powers. ... Worked out well, didn't it. :p

Yeah, Poland's neighbours had seen to that. :rolleyes:
Neu Leonstein
11-06-2007, 13:08
Yeah, Poland's neighbours had seen to that. :rolleyes:
I'm just saying: the whole "principle" had been to protect Poland's independence. At the end of the war, the only person still grumbling about that old stuff was Churchill, and he'd gone all senile. I can understand that many Poles might be sceptical when they hear about the "principles" of declaring war on Germany in 1939, considering the ultimate outcome.
Nipeng
11-06-2007, 13:23
I'm just saying: the whole "principle" had been to protect Poland's independence.

Oh. OK.

At the end of the war, the only person still grumbling about that old stuff was Churchill, and he'd gone all senile. I can understand that many Poles might be sceptical when they hear about the "principles" of declaring war on Germany in 1939, considering the ultimate outcome.

Well, Great Britain and France could not afford to ignore Poland's fate as they did Czechoslovakias when it was attacked. They did try to fulfill their part of agreement, at least initially. They just did't try hard enough. If their governments knew what will happen... But only in hindsight everything is so clear.
Hoylake
11-06-2007, 13:35
What a pointless and stupid OP. The best nation in WWII?
Allanea
11-06-2007, 13:37
And here's another person ragging on the OP without providing any kind of intellectual basis to his ragging.
Bodies Without Organs
11-06-2007, 13:38
lol, Poles, Charge those Stugs and Tigers with cavalry! ahhhh!

...actually they charged infantry at Krojanty - the whole sabres against tanks thing was a piece of propaganda put out by the Germans.
Kansiov
11-06-2007, 13:43
Hoylake, if its so stupid why post in it? You can leave your comments to yourself, I don't see why if this is not your intrest, you should be stopping everyone else's intrest, (unless your Granate's Clone)
Hamilay
11-06-2007, 13:48
...actually they charged infantry at Krojanty - the whole sabres against tanks thing was a piece of propaganda put out by the Germans.

I know it's not true, but German propaganda? Sure, it sounds like a silly thing to do, but why would the Germans essentially espouse the courage of their enemies?
Bodies Without Organs
11-06-2007, 13:52
I know it's not true, but German propaganda? Sure, it sounds like a silly thing to do, but why would the Germans essentially espouse the courage of their enemies?

To show that even courage won't help them in the face of fine German made machineguns?
Hamilay
11-06-2007, 14:02
To show that even courage won't help them in the face of fine German made machineguns?

Fair enough.

*flees*
Adaptus Astrates
11-06-2007, 14:20
Britain and the Commonwealth&Empire.
Face it. We were in it from start from finish, with more ups and downs than a rollercoaster.
We survived the initial German blitzkrieg in France thanks to Dunkirk. We held out during the battle of Britain. We succesfully cracked the enigma codes with the world's first proper computer. We fought back Rommel. We held out in Malta. We dominated the Med. We held and countered against the Japanese. We struck back hard against Germany's cities (stuff the morality of it). We (along with our Commonwealth and free Country forces) fought bloody well in Italy. The famous St. Nazaire raid! We fought on every front in every possible way, and we won!
Then of course we had Churchill, Dowding (is that right?), Keith Park, Cunningham, Ramsay, Tovey, Montgomery, Alexander, Slim, Stirling, Harris, Bader, among others, and need I go on.
Yootopia
11-06-2007, 14:27
The USSR. Let's be realistic. Amazing progress felt.

1939-41 USSR army - like the 1918 Red Guards - a flabby, ineffective mass, underequipped, woefully lacking in decent generals and with no real tactics other than The Zerg Swarm.

1942-43 USSR army - pretty poor overall, but improving swiftly, new commanders starting to take shape, and with the T34/85 starting production in mid-late 1943, the best tank of the war, all things considered, was about to be brought onto the field.

1945 USSR army - one of the best on the fields of battle - well trained considering the numbers, amongst the best equipped for all kinds of battle, with some excellent commanders, very good small-scale tactics and the best reconnaissance troops in the world at that point.

Still, an honourable mention to the British and Commonwealth, for simply sticking with it and all.
Yootopia
11-06-2007, 14:30
lol, Poles, Charge those Stugs and Tigers with cavalry! ahhhh!
Err if that did happen, it'd be Cavalry vs. Pz IIs.

As you may know if you knew anything about German tanks, a PzII is essentially a Volvo with an underpowered 20mm gun on top. The simple application of polo mallet to engine would probably brew the thing up.
Vespertilia
11-06-2007, 14:36
We succesfully cracked the enigma codes

*ahem*Rejewski et al.*ahem*
Soleichunn
11-06-2007, 14:40
I know it's not true, but German propaganda? Sure, it sounds like a silly thing to do, but why would the Germans essentially espouse the courage of their enemies?

It would be to make the Poles look foolish and weak, perfectly playing into the propaganda of the NaZi party.
Regenius
11-06-2007, 15:46
I'm for the US and against the USSR and UK for a few reasons.

Pro Allied Powers because: Hey, they won the war.

Anti USSR: Their main tactic was throw as much man power at the problem as necessary, something is bound to stick. They were bound to win in what they made into a war of attrition.

Anti UK: Two words, Market Garden. Montgomery f-ed up big time.

Pro US as the remaining major allied power: Overlord and Torch were well executed and planned. Plus we had Patton, Bradley, Eisenhower, and a whole slew of great generals.


The war in the Pacific would have to be considered separately.
Cookesland
11-06-2007, 16:00
definatly Groland had it in the bag
Risottia
11-06-2007, 16:04
Tito's Jugoslavija.
Manfigurut
11-06-2007, 16:04
Why are there Poland and Romania as options..?
Bodies Without Organs
11-06-2007, 16:05
I'm for the US and against the USSR and UK for a few reasons.

Anti USSR: Their main tactic was throw as much man power at the problem as necessary, something is bound to stick. They were bound to win in what they made into a war of attrition.

Pro US as the remaining major allied power: Overlord and Torch were well executed and planned. Plus we had Patton, Bradley, Eisenhower, and a whole slew of great generals.



Both the US and the USSR fought WWII on the basis of attrition, each exploiting their primary resource in order to do so. For the US this primary resource was their strong industrial base, whereas for the USSR it was their vast reserves of manpower.

To expect the USSR to have outproduce its Axis opponents and won the war through logistical superiority is deeply mistaken, although in the closing stages of the war in Europe they were able to provide immense artillery bombardments due to narrow frontage they were fighting on. There is some ludicrous figure like one artillery piece per 50 yards of frontline, or something.

Sending wave after wave of ill-equipped and ill-trained troops (herded forwards by politcal commissars) may seem crazy, but it worked and drove the Axis back. If the USSR had not been so ready to spend its own blood the outcome would have been different.

Compare this to the US approach - locate enemy. Stop. Call in artillery. Enemy still there? Call in airpower. Enemy still there? Call in tanks. Enemy still there? Send in the grunts. Exploitation of their prime resource - industrial materials.

The US and the USSR fought the same kind of war in many ways, and to draw the division you have is to miss the big picture.


As far as Torch being well planned... Kasserine pass? - and as for Overlord, in case you hadn't noticed that was planned and carried out by the US, the UK and Canada, so notching it up as a particular achievement of the US is spurious.
SaintB
11-06-2007, 16:06
I'm going to vote for the Germans as having the best all around war machine during World War II. It took Great Brittain, Russia, The USA, Poland, France, Canada, and nearly a dozen nations total to bring them down to thier knees... and they may have still been capable of resisting by the time they surrendered.
Krasniy Oktyabr
11-06-2007, 16:11
And still nothing can beat a Bayonet charge in some rather revealing 'kilts' and a sack with some poles in it that sounds like a dying llama.
SaintB
11-06-2007, 16:11
Both the US and the USSR fought WWII on the basis of attrition, each exploiting their primary resource in order to do so. For the US this primary resource was their strong industrial base, whereas for the USSR it was their vast reserves of manpower.


Thats because The USSR ran out of Zerglings...
SaintB
11-06-2007, 16:14
The Finns have a better record than the Germans - fighting the USSR to a stop twice, and then routing the Germans. Pretty hard to beat, no?

Good point, but the Finns weren't on the poll.
Bodies Without Organs
11-06-2007, 16:14
I'm going to vote for the Germans as having the best all around war machine during World War II. It took Great Brittain, Russia, The USA, Poland, France, Canada, and nearly a dozen nations total to bring them down to thier knees... and they may have still been capable of resisting by the time they surrendered.

The Finns have a better record than the Germans - fighting the USSR to a stop twice, and then routing the Germans. Pretty hard to beat, no?
Yootopia
11-06-2007, 16:31
Anti USSR: Their main tactic was throw as much man power at the problem as necessary, something is bound to stick. They were bound to win in what they made into a war of attrition.
Apart from by late 1943 when it was seen as completely stupid to do such a thing.

The excellently executed and supplied offensives from 1944 onwards showed that the USSR was certainly capable of winning a war through tactics rather than by mass infantry waves.

Not only this, but they managed to get half of their manufacturing capability onto trains and recover by the end of the war enough to outproduce anyone but the US in terms of military equipment.

This, and they also had the best tank of the war, the T34/85 (A Sherman was inferior in every single way, except for the fact that it had a gyrostabiliser), the best SMG of the war, revolutionary tactics, and excellent use of airborne troops to resupply and train up partisans.
Anti UK: Two words, Market Garden. Montgomery f-ed up big time.
Oh no, one operation went wrong. On that end of the field, the cock-ups of the US include Hurtgen Forest, where the US lost 3 times the German casualties.

We had massive airborne success with Operation Tonga. Which was nice.

We also stuck through the whole war, got the first Allied jet fighter (which you prompty stole, you cads), defended ourselves against Germany pretty nicely in the Battle of Britain and put up with fairly bad civilian casualties.

We also properly started the whole special forces thing, with the LRDRs and the SAS, which was pretty good of us and all.
Pro US as the remaining major allied power: Overlord and Torch were well executed and planned. Plus we had Patton, Bradley, Eisenhower, and a whole slew of great generals.
Anti-US :

- Omaha (yeah, nice one there)
- Cocky commanders who went ahead of the other Allied forces for the purposes of bravado, costing a fair few lives (esp. Patton)
- World War Lateness Syndrome
- Taking the piss with lend-lease
- Understating the importance of the USSR's efforts
The war in the Pacific would have to be considered separately.
Oh yes. I could go on about that all day.
Beddgelert
11-06-2007, 16:48
While I agree with a lot of Yootopia's post, I have to wonder, "the best SMG of the war"? What, the PPSh-41? I'm pretty sure that I'd rather have had an M-31 Suomi, so that, you know, the guy I just shot wouldn't be as likely to be still capable of shooting back.

Once again this is just likely to fall into the oft-mentioned trap of an inability to decide what qualities make a thing better (Suomi clearly kicks PPSh arse, unless you've got a million men wanting SMGs and you're facing an oh-my-god-they're-coming-to-kill-us deadline), so I might just stop typing, nowish.

Oh, but not without a quick cheer for Risottia's pick, "Tito's Jugoslavija".
Bodies Without Organs
11-06-2007, 17:08
- Cocky commanders who went ahead of the other Allied forces for the purposes of bravado, costing a fair few lives (esp. Patton)

To say nothing of his stealing supplies from other units. In an earlier war people would have been shot at dawn for doing such a thing.
Bodies Without Organs
11-06-2007, 17:15
Once again this is just likely to fall into the oft-mentioned trap of an inability to decide what qualities make a thing better (Suomi clearly kicks PPSh arse, unless you've got a million men wanting SMGs and you're facing an oh-my-god-they're-coming-to-kill-us deadline), so I might just stop typing, nowish.

[can-o-worms]The PPSh lacks the stylish engineering elegance of the Sten gun, which has only about two thirds the number of parts as the Russian attempt.[/can-o-worms]
Beddgelert
11-06-2007, 17:20
[can-o-worms]The PPSh lacks the stylish engineering elegance of the Sten gun, which has only about two thirds the number of parts as the Russian attempt.[/can-o-worms]

Hehe. My great uncle spent an afternoon telling me about how hard it was to make anything die, with a Sten. He should have told that to the guys who just-about assassinated Heydrich, really.
Allanea
11-06-2007, 17:22
Hehe. My great uncle spent an afternoon telling me about how hard it was to make anything die, with a Sten. He should have told that to the guys who just-about assassinated Heydrich, really.

Just-about is a good one.

And PPSh's could cut people in half at 20 meters. Literally. As in have the upper part of the torso fall off.
G3N13
11-06-2007, 17:23
The USSR. Let's be realistic. Amazing progress felt.Let's be realistic, indeed.

I choose Finland: Suomi-konepistooli (Suomi M-31 SMG) & Motti tactic ftw.
Beddgelert
11-06-2007, 17:28
Just-about is a good one.

And PPSh's could cut people in half at 20 meters. Literally. As in have the upper part of the torso fall off.

Hell, I'm sure you could do that with a Sten... if you have a couple of spare months to spend hitting a guy with it.

I still wouldn't trust the stopping power of the 7.62x25 if a ruddy great stormtrooper were charging at me.

Then again, I wouldn't completely trust the 9x19, either. Ho hum.
West Corinthia
11-06-2007, 17:29
Thats because The USSR ran out of Zerglings...

lol, classic!

Anyway, I voted USA. The only one with nukes. And why is Poland on the list but not Japan? There was a Pacific Theatre you know.
White Aryanas
11-06-2007, 17:47
Germany - I chose Germany for a variety of reasons. In the lead up to the war it had been in the most economic trouble of all the choices, with the Depression and the Versailles Treaty in full effect, until the Government change put them on track again, in only 6 years. They had superior Tanks, better trained soldiers (SchutzStaffel), the Luftwaffe was best in the world at the beginning of the war. They fought the Communists too, which is always a bonus. Not to mention they had the Underdog factor, it took the whole world to defeat Germany.
EDIT: Germany also had the V1 and V2 rocket and it's been widely claimed they had nuclear theory down pat, just needed the resources to produce an atom bomb... Imagine if they dropped one on London... No D-Day landings, that's for sure!

USA - They had the superior manpower and industry, they could pump out more battleships and tanks than their enemies could destroy. Their soldiers weren't trained nearly as well as the Germans or British yet were better equipped. If the best in a war rides solely on who is equipped better the Americans win hands down but it doesn't, the only thing going for the Americans was their superior production, vastly superior economy and their late entry into WWII.

USSR - Lowest morale of all armies that faced 1945 and worst treatment of civilians. Their tanks were next to unmatched but other than that the USSR was riding solely on the fact the Germans made so many tactical errors, the rest of their advancement ran on adrenaline.

UK & Commonwealth Allies - The UK was bombed to the sheizehaus, much like in WWI, they relied on the Yankees coming to save their butts. The British did well in winning the Battle of Britain and becoming a warehouse for America but other than that, they did very little. The Commonwealth nations also didn't do all that much but the Pacific Theatre would most likely have been lost if not for Australia and the Commonwealth played a major role in the African Theatre as well.

Japan - Second worst treatment of civilians. Made a terrific "sneak go" on America, or so they thought. They weren't going anywhere, only got so far in the Pacific because America was fighting two fronts. A plane named Enola Gay stole the title of "Best Nation In WWII" from them.

Guomingdang China - Beaten and raped by Japan, for shame!

France - Le' Resistance did well.

Poland - September 1, 1939 mean much to you?

Italy - Liars, traitors and all round losers. They had to be saved in Africa and Greece which cost the Germans time and resources. They could be claimed to be a major reason why Germany lost the war.

Romania - Helped fight the Commies, well done.
Vespertilia
11-06-2007, 17:55
Whose puppet is this? :p
Soleichunn
11-06-2007, 17:57
Mine?NOTE: NOT MINE.
Beddgelert
11-06-2007, 18:03
Awesome case, whoever it is. "Teh commies suck and only survived because Germany kept making mistakes... Germany is the best!" Can't argue with that sort of logic.
Dontgonearthere
11-06-2007, 18:03
All your other points aside Mr. Puppet, its a common mistake to think that the Germans had the best tanks.
The Soviets and French had superior tanks at the start of the war. The Germans did, however, use their tanks better and had more of them. And, of course, the Russians hadnt been doing any maintenance on most of theirs. Ironic isnt it? The Germans started losing when they began focusing on quality over quantity.
If you need some examples of superior allied tanks, look up the KV-1 (Russian), which, according to one German account, held off six Panzer III's for two days before the turret controls broke down.
Brutland and Norden
11-06-2007, 18:08
Nicaragua.
New Stalinberg
11-06-2007, 18:08
Germany was probably the most technicaly advanced, they were just fighting too many fronts and their allies kind of sucked.
Beddgelert
11-06-2007, 18:09
Seems like that KV-1 should have just knocked-out the PzIIIs with their pretend armour and token armament.

A KV-2 held-up a ridiculous number of Germans for an inordinate length of time, even though they brought up multiple anti-tank guns, shot it countless times, strapped explosives to its inordinately large main gun, and so on and so forth.
Bodies Without Organs
11-06-2007, 18:10
If you need some examples of superior allied tanks, look up the KV-1 (Russian), which, according to one German account, held off six Panzer III's for two days before the turret controls broke down.

Wikipedia gives 22 tank kills for that single vehicle in that engagement if we're thinking of the same incident. Wittmann it ain't, but nonetheless...


EDIT: ah, you meant the other famous one. Mea culpa.
SaintB
11-06-2007, 18:13
The German Tiger II had promise, but it never hit full production.
Dontgonearthere
11-06-2007, 18:13
Seems like that KV-1 should have just knocked-out the PzIIIs with their pretend armour and token armament.

A KV-2 held-up a ridiculous number of Germans for an inordinate length of time, even though they brought up multiple anti-tank guns, shot it countless times, strapped explosives to its inordinately large main gun, and so on and so forth.

The KV2? I thought it had rather thin armor compared to the KV1. Eh. I imagine that 152mm gun was something of a detterent to a direct attack :P

But yeah, the Russians were fairly innovative when it came to tanks, moreso than elsewhere. They were fielding a bunch of amphibious tanks by '39, although most of them were rather innefective in combat >_>
Bodies Without Organs
11-06-2007, 18:14
The Germans started losing when they began focusing on quality over quantity.

...and even when they did begin focusing on quality over quantity, by which I assume you mean the production of the Panthers, Tigers and their variants, they managed to produce very good tanks if they worked the way they were meant too, but instead were plagued with overheating, dodgy gearboxes and unreliable mechanisms.

On paper they were great fighting machines, but on the ground they were often in the repair shops for niggling problems.
Dontgonearthere
11-06-2007, 18:15
Wikipedia gives 22 tank kills for that single vehicle in that engagement if we're thinking of the same incident. Wittmann it ain't, but nonetheless...

Maybe. I tend to get numbers mixed up when I dont check the articles every month or so :P

The German Tiger II had promise, but it never hit full production.

The Tiger II was a bad idea from the outset. Resources from that program could've gone into Panzer III/IV's, since the late models of those tanks were decent enough. But then, the Russians had something like 40,000 T-34's at that point, so I dont suppose it would've mattered in the end.
Alversia
11-06-2007, 18:16
Poland was the best!!
Dontgonearthere
11-06-2007, 18:17
...and even when they did begin focusing on quality over quantity, by which I assume you mean the production of the Panthers, Tigers and their variants, they managed to produce very good tanks if they worked the way they were meant too, but instead were plagued with overheating, dodgy gearboxes and unreliable mechanisms.

On paper they were great fighting machines, but on the ground they were often in the repair shops for niggling problems.

Not to mention the T-34 outnumbered those models something like 10:1 in production terms. I'd find exact numbers...but meh.
Corbournne
11-06-2007, 18:18
i voted for USSR because they turned the tide in the war, and didnt poland get the crap kicked out of them in a short time? no offense if your polish.

Yeah, but I don't care who it is, they would've been defeated in a war with the Third Reich and the USSR.
Kobunite
11-06-2007, 18:18
It is Obvious that USSR had the better Manpower, Better Morale and better commanders. So thats why I voted for them, the Americans were rather slow, in Normandy, North Africa. They relied heavily on firepower and could not advance without them.

WHOA! Hold on here...the Russians had commanders who ordered that there was not to be one step backwards (namely in key battles such as Stalingrad) resulting in low morale among troops in that region...after all who wants to be shot by people on their side? Britian and US had better commanders IMO, they had less troops and had to cross the English Channel to attack a heavily defended coast. Better morale? Kinda...I'd say that they had better motivation, after all Britian hadn't been invaded by a foreign power.

I voted for Britian and the Commonweath, partially out of national pride but mainly because to survive Britian had to defeat the larger and better equipped German Luftwaffe, had to ferry war supplies and food over thousands of miles of ocean which was full of U-Boats in a time where ASW was luck and more of a revenge exercise than a preventitive, forght on the most fronts (Burma, China, Africa, Italy, France) among other things....

However, I can see why someone would vote for Russia and that without Russia the other powers would not of had the ability to win or even survive.
Bodies Without Organs
11-06-2007, 18:19
Not to mention the T-34 outnumbered those models something like 10:1 in production terms. I'd find exact numbers...but meh.

...and along with that the oft-repeated figure of it taking seven Ronsons to take out one Tiger.
Adaptus Astrates
11-06-2007, 18:19
*ahem*Rejewski et al.*ahem*

Presumably you refer to the Polish Bombe (forgive spelling).

I you cared to continue to read the same sentence, you will have read that we used the first COMPUTER to do it.

The Bombe was a crude thing anyway. The name itself was prone to being compromised to the Germans- bit suspicious, a new piece of technolgy that is called what looks like and sounds like a bomb.
So we did not use the Bombe, we used the more secretive Colussus.
Dontgonearthere
11-06-2007, 18:21
...and along with that the oft-repeated figure of it taking seven Ronsons to take out one Tiger.

Fourtunatly the T-34 was somewhat superior to the ol' Sherman in several regards. Such as actually having a decent gun on it and being able to withstand getting kicked by a small child.
Alversia
11-06-2007, 18:22
BTW, Poland fought for an entire month! Same as France whose army was four times bigger and had much more tanks and aircraft than Poland. The Polish could have beaten Germany if France had attacked from the West as well
New Stalinberg
11-06-2007, 18:39
Wan't the Panther the best tank of the war?

I thought it was made to counter the new T-34s.
Alversia
11-06-2007, 18:42
It was and it is
SaintB
11-06-2007, 18:44
Fourtunatly the T-34 was somewhat superior to the ol' Sherman in several regards. Such as actually having a decent gun on it and being able to withstand getting kicked by a small child.

The Sherman Firefly was a good American Tank. It was slightly tougher than a regular Sherman and mounted a 7.76mm cannon that could kill a Panzer in on good shot. The Polish especiall made good use of them during the liberation of Paris.
Alversia
11-06-2007, 18:48
The Sherman Firefly was a good American Tank. It was slightly tougher than a regular Sherman and mounted a 7.76mm cannon that could kill a Panzer in on good shot. The Polish especiall made good use of them during the liberation of Paris.

The Sherman Firefly was British as well you know

It was a British gun
SaintB
11-06-2007, 18:56
The Sherman Firefly was British as well you know

It was a British gun

Aye, the gun was British, the chasis was American... we'll just classify it as Allied Tank then?
Alversia
11-06-2007, 19:10
Aye, the gun was British, the chasis was American... we'll just classify it as Allied Tank then?

That'll do me rightly
SaintB
11-06-2007, 19:15
That'll do me rightly

Doesn't change the fact that the Polish used it to crush German opposition during the liberation of Paris
Alversia
11-06-2007, 19:20
Doesn't change the fact that the Polish used it to crush German opposition during the liberation of Paris

True

Never said it didn't
Skiptard
11-06-2007, 19:24
It is Obvious that USSR had the better Manpower, Better Morale and better commanders. So thats why I voted for them, the Americans were rather slow, in Normandy, North Africa. They relied heavily on firepower and could not advance without them.

Lies lies lies. Just man power.

Commanders treated their soldiers like dirt and used them accordingly. They were just cannon fodder. Thanks be to communism.

US and UK actually valued the lives of their soldiers, hence the backup.

UK id say, still more professional than all said forces, even if we are getting funding problems. They cared about their troops far more, gave them great training and had generals who understand tactical warfare.
Droskianishk
11-06-2007, 19:26
It is Obvious that USSR had the better Manpower, Better Morale and better commanders. So thats why I voted for them, the Americans were rather slow, in Normandy, North Africa. They relied heavily on firepower and could not advance without them.


If I remember correctly the USSR couldn't get anywhere until late '43 because of the lack of firepower (which was eventually sold to them by America)... just a thought. (And the USSR wasn't even fighting Japan which is why the Americans were 'slow' in Normandy and North Africa.
New Manvir
11-06-2007, 19:29
I'm split between the USSR and the UK/Commonwealth....
Despoticania
11-06-2007, 19:32
Can't vote. Why isn't Finland included in this poll?
Alversia
11-06-2007, 19:33
One:
The reason the USSR did not move before 1943 was because they lacked trained Infantry to launch the attacks. They DID display some care for their soldiers hence the training.
Two:
At it's peak, the Red Army contained 8% Allied tanks ONLY, never more than that. They did rely on American Trucks but that was about it
Three:
The Red Army offensive at Stalingrad and the defense of Kursk were brilliant tatical victories for the Soviets so they did have many talented officers. Also, the offensives of 1944 that ripped the heart out of the German Army could not have been carried out by ineffiecient officers. Look at WW1 for example
Alversia
11-06-2007, 19:33
I know, Finland were the best
Droskianishk
11-06-2007, 19:44
One:
The reason the USSR did not move before 1943 was because they lacked trained Infantry to launch the attacks. They DID display some care for their soldiers hence the training.
Two:
At it's peak, the Red Army contained 8% Allied tanks ONLY, never more than that. They did rely on American Trucks but that was about it
Three:
The Red Army offensive at Stalingrad and the defense of Kursk were brilliant tatical victories for the Soviets so they did have many talented officers. Also, the offensives of 1944 that ripped the heart out of the German Army could not have been carried out by ineffiecient officers. Look at WW1 for example


Well the whole T-80 model of tanks were purchased from the west (the design).
Alversia
11-06-2007, 19:55
That's not WW2 though
New Manvir
11-06-2007, 19:57
Nicaragua.

pfft....Nicaragua didn't do shit compared to Guatemala and El Salvador....:p
New Maastricht
11-06-2007, 20:48
So really the bottom 6 countries should be dropped completely from the poll, and Finland be placed in their stead. Any other notable mentions anyone can think of?
Kobunite
11-06-2007, 21:00
One:
The reason the USSR did not move before 1943 was because they lacked trained Infantry to launch the attacks. They DID display some care for their soldiers hence the training.
Two:
At it's peak, the Red Army contained 8% Allied tanks ONLY, never more than that. They did rely on American Trucks but that was about it
Three:
The Red Army offensive at Stalingrad and the defense of Kursk were brilliant tatical victories for the Soviets so they did have many talented officers. Also, the offensives of 1944 that ripped the heart out of the German Army could not have been carried out by ineffiecient officers. Look at WW1 for example

One:- Some being the operative there. Many Russian soldiers (actually, most since Conscription had happened since the Tsars) were peasants with rifles...

Two:- I'd rather be buying Tanks from the states than Trucks, having lots of trucks is more important. After all, you can't use the shiny new tank without the fuel or ammo it needs...

Three:- I'd be tempted to say Strategic. There was little use of Tactics in Stalingrad and Kursk from what i've learnt. However, they couldn't afford to lose either city because of the effect it'd have on morale.

Well...thats my opinions....
Bunnyducks
11-06-2007, 21:06
So really the bottom 6 countries should be dropped completely from the poll, and Finland be placed in their stead. Any other notable mentions anyone can think of?
Sounds quite ridiculous to me too.
South Adrea
11-06-2007, 21:46
The reason the USSR did not move before 1943 was because they lacked trained Infantry to launch the attacks. They DID display some care for their soldiers hence the training.


Was it not to do with the pact with Hitler? Just a little?

It doesn't necessarily demonstate care rather knowing that they would eventually run out of manpower otherwise and more importantly completely untrained soldiers would be about as useful as a supercarrier made of Sodium and sugar.
Minaris
11-06-2007, 21:49
Was it not to do with the pact with Hitler? Just a little?

No; Stalin was about to violate the treaty when Hitler did. Or something like that.
Dontgonearthere
11-06-2007, 21:49
Was it not to do with the pact with Hitler? Just a little?

It doesn't necessarily demonstate care rather knowing that they would eventually run out of manpower otherwise and more importantly completely untrained soldiers would be about as useful as a supercarrier made of Sodium and sugar.

THose compleatly untrained soldiers served their purpose quite nicely, actually. They acted as meat shields and distractions for long enough to get actually trained troops fielded and getting the USSR to a point where it could beat Germany.
And people often underestimate what a determined farmer with a gun can do.
You know, most of the best snipers in WWII had little or no military training, right? Aside from battlefield experience, after a while.
G3N13
11-06-2007, 21:59
So really the bottom 6 countries should be dropped completely from the poll, and Finland be placed in their stead.I heartily agree... (Well Japan might be allowed to remain...;))

For example...Battle of Suomussalmi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Suomussalmi) casualties:

Finland
350 killed
600 wounded
70 missing

Soviet Union
27,500 killed and missing
85 tanks, 138 artillery pieces, 537 trucks, 1,620 horses

note: Soviets had 5 times the manpower in that battle, they also had about 80 tanks more than the finns. :p

edit: That's assuming they only had about 85-90 tanks to begin with ;)
Kobunite
11-06-2007, 23:04
No; Stalin was about to violate the treaty when Hitler did. Or something like that.

Didn't Germany attack Russia in 1941? I think it did not too sure, but theres evidence that Stalin refused to believe that Hitler had broken the treaty for several days/weeks and so Russia was condemned to a poor start in WW2...

and for anyone whos wondering....this is what a History degree does to you....:headbang:
Alversia
12-06-2007, 00:06
The Pact was a trick from Stalin. He knew Russia wouldn't be ready when Germany was and so he made this pact to keep the country at peace until he could prepare his Army slightly better
Ghost Tigers Rise
12-06-2007, 00:14
Let's hear it for the CCCP!

I mean, Stalin was a bastard, but the common Ivan pretty much turned the tide in the war (along with UK pilots, to be sure).
Extreme Ironing
12-06-2007, 00:14
Seeing this thread title in General with Fass's name next to it.... man, sight of the day :p
Alversia
12-06-2007, 00:28
True
Neo Undelia
12-06-2007, 00:38
The UK and commonwealth forces. Fairly competent. Accomplished a great deal. Weren't trying to conquer anyone. Minimal cases of looting and rape. Honestly it was a tossup between the US and UK, but I decided that what the US's firebombing and Nuking of Japanese cities was worse than Dresden.
Alversia
12-06-2007, 00:44
The UK and commonwealth forces. Fairly competent. Accomplished a great deal. Weren't trying to conquer anyone. Minimal cases of looting and rape. Honestly it was a tossup between the US and UK, but I decided that what the US's firebombing and Nuking of Japanese cities was worse than Dresden.

The nukes were pretty brutal
New Limacon
12-06-2007, 01:08
"You forgot Poland!"

Oh, wait, you didn't.

The UK and commonwealth forces. Fairly competent. Accomplished a great deal. Weren't trying to conquer anyone. Minimal cases of looting and rape. Honestly it was a tossup between the US and UK, but I decided that what the US's firebombing and Nuking of Japanese cities was worse than Dresden.
I would have to disagree with the nuking being worse than Dresden. In the long term it was bad, because it allowed an incredibly powerful weapon with no redeeming value to exist on earth, but terms of deaths and purpose, I think Dresden took the cake.
Johnny B Goode
12-06-2007, 01:14
The Finns.

From what I know, they were getting their ass handed to them. But the VL Pyoerremyrsky is a pretty cool name for a Bf-109 clone.
Alversia
12-06-2007, 01:14
How many died at Dresden compared to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Yootopia
12-06-2007, 01:16
I would have to disagree with the nuking being worse than Dresden. In the long term it was bad, because it allowed an incredibly powerful weapon with no redeeming value to exist on earth, but terms of deaths and purpose, I think Dresden took the cake.
Both the nukes and firebombing of Tokyo were worse.

Tokyo especially, seeing as it was essentially Dresden wraught large.
Yootopia
12-06-2007, 01:23
How many died at Dresden compared to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Less.
Bodies Without Organs
12-06-2007, 01:32
The Sherman Firefly was a good American Tank. It was slightly tougher than a regular Sherman and mounted a 7.76mm cannon that could kill a Panzer in on good shot. The Polish especiall made good use of them during the liberation of Paris.

...aside from the nationality issue, shouldn't that be 7.76 cm cannon (or as we call them over here a 17 pounder) not mm?
Yootopia
12-06-2007, 01:43
...aside from the nationality issue, shouldn't that be 7.76 cm cannon (or as we call them over here a 17 pounder) not mm?
It should also be a 7.62, actually.
Vittos the City Sacker
12-06-2007, 01:47
I would agree with Fass if not for the spin-off thread.

Also, that was certainly the greatest thread steal in the history of timewarp.
Psychotic Mongooses
12-06-2007, 01:48
From what I know, they were getting their ass handed to them.

Wedged between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, I think its remarkable they managed to survive the conflict at all.
Skiptard
12-06-2007, 01:55
I heartily agree... (Well Japan might be allowed to remain...;))

For example...Battle of Suomussalmi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Suomussalmi) casualties:

Finland
350 killed
600 wounded
70 missing

Soviet Union
27,500 killed and missing
85 tanks, 138 artillery pieces, 537 trucks, 1,620 horses

note: Soviets had 5 times the manpower in that battle, they also had about 80 tanks more than the finns. :p

edit: That's assuming they only had about 85-90 tanks to begin with ;)

Given the basic odds of troop numbers etc well done to them.

Its a perfect example of how a well trained, well equipped army will pull one over on a clumsy enemy. But they don't really deserve to be in the poll, overall what did they contribute to ww2?

Apart from the fight with soviet Russia, which I personally don't consider part of the world war, just a minor conflict in Russia's expansionism, they we quite friendly with Nazis and only fought them near the end to expel them. All they did, was secure their own interests (probably the smartest of all countries involved in that case...)
Psychotic Mongooses
12-06-2007, 02:02
But they don't really deserve to be in the poll, overall what did they contribute to ww2?


Depends what you consider to be World War II. A lot would say in the East, it was Japan's move into China in the early thirties. In Europe, Soviet moving into Finland etc etc.
FC United Leeds
12-06-2007, 02:05
Has to be the UK and Commonwealth - held their own for over a year against the might of Germany that had engulfed the entire European continent (except USSR) and then with the help of the US managed to create a foothold on 'Fortress Europe' and then defeat said war machine with aid of US and USSR.

And the US was part of the Dresden raid as well as the atomic bombings - and Tokyo was essentially a worse case of Dresden.

And the improved Sherman with the better gun - that was an American tank with a British weapon, replacing the popgun it had originally been armed with.

God save the Queen...lol
Bodies Without Organs
12-06-2007, 02:12
Has to be the UK and Commonwealth - held their own for over a year against the might of Germany that had engulfed the entire European continent (except USSR)...


...and Spain. And Portugal. And Sweden. And Ireland. And Switzerland. And Iceland.
OcceanDrive
12-06-2007, 02:13
...actually they charged infantry at Krojanty - the whole sabres against tanks thing was a piece of propaganda put out by the Germans.trying to portray the enemy as dumb ?
Alversia
12-06-2007, 02:14
...and Spain. And Portugal. And Sweden. And Ireland. And Switzerland. And Iceland.

Actually Iceland became a base of Operations for Allied Bombers in the war against the U-boats
Bodies Without Organs
12-06-2007, 02:17
Actually Iceland became a base of Operations for Allied Bombers in the war against the U-boats

Yes, but it wasn't engulfed by Axis powers was it? - that was the point I was making.
Gataway
12-06-2007, 04:59
It is Obvious that USSR had the better Manpower, Better Morale and better commanders. So thats why I voted for them, the Americans were rather slow, in Normandy, North Africa. They relied heavily on firepower and could not advance without them.

Better Morale...They had to press forward or their own commanders would kill them...basically the Russian tactic has been...slash and burn...let the winter kill you off..then run you over with a massive horde of men. The USA relies on fire and air support because the commanders in the USA valued their men's lives more than the reds..
Dontgonearthere
12-06-2007, 05:13
Better Morale...They had to press forward or their own commanders would kill them...basically the Russian tactic has been...slash and burn...let the winter kill you off..then run you over with a massive horde of men. The USA relies on fire and air support because the commanders in the USA valued their men's lives more than the reds..

*facepalm*
Here we go again.
*ahem*
Addressing your points one by one...
1) The role of Commisars past the very earliest stages of the war has been greatly exaggerated by Western historians. Their powers virtually dissapeared once Stalin and company realized, "OH SHIT, THEYRE KILLING OFF OUR BEST MEN." In reality, it was mostly only the penal brigades which faced death if they retreated. The Soviets werent stupid, and machine guns are better employed where they can be used against the enemy, especially when you dont have a lot of them.

2) You can hardly blame the Russians for retreating when their enemies are stupid enough to overextend themselves EVERY TIME. If it works, why not? Denying the enemy food and shelter is a fine tradition of militaries everywhere, hardly exclusive to Russia.

3) The Russian Winter's effects have been greatly exaggerated as well. There's a handy graph on Wikipedia which shows French casualties in relation to the temperature in Russia during Napoleons invasion. Casulaties rise with the temperature.

4) The Russians certainly rely on numbers every now and then, but you seem to be forgetting that they had one of the best air forces in WWII, and certainly the best ground attack aircraft (The IL-2 Sturmovik, even acknolwedged by the British as superior to their own GSA's), as well as very good tanks and an impressivly large fleet of submarines (some 300 by wars end.) I've already mentioned Russian snipers, who were far and away the best in the war. And, of course, the Russian Shock Troops/Guards regiments, which proved more than a match for German elite troops.
The Russians employed air and fire support to GREAT effect during the war. You DO know who built the most artillery pieces, rocket launchers and mortars during WWII, right?
"Ah, Katyusha, her lovely voice luls me to sleep every night, comforting me with the knowledge that some poor bastard is about to get a hundred pounds of explosive dropped on his head."

5) Again, 'the reds' were not a single entity. Commanders placed different values on their mens lives.
Contrary to popular belief, not all Russian commanders were of the "MOZZARLLLAAAAND!" type.
Delator
12-06-2007, 07:56
As far as Torch being well planned... Kasserine pass?

Two entirely different things, by the way.

Torch was an amphibious invasion (part of which was done cross-ocean, not done before or since) that was widely considered a smashing success...for once, we can thank the French for not fighting. :p

Kasserine was a battle fought nearly four months later, nearly half a continent away.

So yeah...

- World War Lateness Syndrome

I love how this is used to somehow disparage U.S. efforts during WWII.

What reason did we have to fight in Europe's war prior to 1941?

However, I can see why someone would vote for Russia and that without Russia the other powers would not of had the ability to win or even survive.

A big fat :rolleyes: for that one.
Beddgelert
12-06-2007, 08:07
"What reason did we have to fight in Europe's war prior to 1941?"

A darn sight more reason than you (I say, 'you' only because you chose to identify in that way) had for attacking the Spanish Empire, or Yugoslavia, or Iraq, or Grenada, and so on and so forth, don't you think?

Preservation of democracy, the free market and all that I could have understood. But it seems imposition is the only reason good enough for the US. I struggle to understand why.

Britain didn't have to get involved. We could have ignored Poland like we ignored Czechoslovakia, and could have just laughed at France as would have been the more natural British instinct, but it seemed like Nazism was pretty bad and also somewhat dangerous.

Like most of the world was okay with you jumping in to sort-of help Kuwait, it would have been pretty glad to see the US turn up to help the sort-of free world against Fascism and its allies.

Of course I don't care all that much either way, and would have been much happier to see the Yugoslav PLA expand across Eastern Europe and beyond.

(Oh, but, yeah, Britain and the US would have survived without Russia, it just would have sucked to live next door to an unfriendly and wildly unstable Fascist state destined for bloody collapse.)
Delator
12-06-2007, 08:36
"What reason did we have to fight in Europe's war prior to 1941?"

A darn sight more reason than you (I say, 'you' only because you chose to identify in that way) had for attacking the Spanish Empire, or Yugoslavia, or Iraq, or Grenada, and so on and so forth, don't you think?

We hadn't been attacked. Plain and simple. We had no collective desire to fight in Europe's war a second time.

Oh...and in regards to your statement "it would have been pretty glad to see the US turn up to help the sort-of free world against Fascism and its allies."

The biggest lie about WW II is that it was a war between good and evil. Bullshit, because there were no good European countries.

...

Europe before Stalingrad was an alien planet, as crazy and bloodthirsty as any Aztec priest. Nobody realizes the complete flip-flop Europe did in 1945. Before that, it was a continent full of insane fascists. Some were braver, better soldiers, or smarter; those are the only real differences.

...

There's another inconvenient fact about Churchill: he was a fascist too, every bit as much as Hitler. Only thing is, you can't blame him much for that, because, and I want y'all to listen up here, everybody in Europe was a fascist until 1943--if they were quick on the uptake enough to see the Wehrmacht was doomed--or 1944, by which time it was obvious even to the moron majority that fascism was now officially taboo. I repeat: everybody in Europe. Fascist to the core.

Churchill's one and only reason for fighting Hitler was that he didn't want Germany challenging England for world domination. In 1936, Churchill told a British general, "Germany is getting too strong; we must smash her." That was his only objection to the Nazis. No way he could have minded their brutality, because Churchill was always in favor of violence against anybody who opposed British interests. Long before the war, he supported using concentration camps for the Boer women and kids, strafing Indian villages--and here's his enlightened democratic quote on how to deal with the Iraqi Kurds, everybody's favorite persecuted minority, from a 1919 memo: "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned [sic] gas against uncivilized tribes."

That doesn't make him a bad guy; it just makes him a standard European, pre-1945. They were all like that, only more so. You can go down the list of European countries and come up with a list of homegrown fascist parties, all totally popular and democratic, that make the Nazis look like squeamish moderates. Some of them, like the Iron Guard in Romania, make even me flinch.

...

Even the noncombatant states were fascist before the Marshall Plan showed dictators that there was more profit in talking nice. Countries tried to copy the big, bad fascists with little comedy monsters of their own, like Trujillo in the Dominican Republic or Peron in Argentina. And in their humble way, all these guys did their best to do their worst. Trujillo actually tried to prove that the Dominicans were the lost tribe of Aryanism, and ordered something like 30,000 Haitian immigrants hacked to death with machetes for being "black." Even the Mexicans tried to do the Fascist two-step, only being Mexican they went for the gaudiest color they could find, so while Germany had the brownshirts and Mussolini had the blackshirts, Mexico came up with...the Gold Shirts! "And put some frilly cuffs on that while you're at it!"

After Stalingrad, the world's fascists just figured out that if you wanted to win, you needed US backing like Stalin got, and that meant you needed a cleaner line of patter than the Nazis and Japanese used. Those hick Jerries and Japs talked death, skulls, slaughter, suicide--tsk tsk, way uncool. Stalin, on the other hand, talked peace, friendship between peoples, justice for the working class...and not only killed far more civvies than Hitler did but got funded for it by the American taxpayer. It was the original no-brainer--which was lucky because this was the Dumbest Generation since the Thirty Years War.

http://www.exile.ru/2006-December-15/war_nerd.html

...so you had it right with "sort-of-free", and I ask again, why should we have gotten involved prior to 1941?

That kind of unilateral action is the exact kind of thing that the U.S. gets flak for in this day and age, so what, exactly, made it acceptable for us to go hog-wild in this instance??
Allanea
12-06-2007, 08:38
That kind of unilateral action is the exact kind of thing that the U.S. gets flak for in this day and age,

That's silly too. Your point?
Beddgelert
12-06-2007, 08:39
Well, my point was that the US is okay with unilateral action when it means imposing ideology on others, but, in this case, it wouldn't have been unilateral at all, and it would have been defending more than imposing.
Delator
12-06-2007, 08:45
That's silly too. Your point?

My point is that I'm looking for a solid reason why the U.S. should have gotten involved in WWII prior to 1941 that doesn't involve "defending freedom and the free market"

Why is it that the U.S. is disparaged for being just like every other nation on earth at the time...opportunistic and self-interested???
Greater Somalia
12-06-2007, 09:01
Chinese are just like the Pandas that roam in China, powerful and yet perceived as cute and clumsy.
Harlesburg
12-06-2007, 10:11
The correct answer is UK and Commonwealth allies, because of New Zealand and Australia, but mostly New Zealand, because we didn't piss off to defend our home lands like the Aussies did.

General Freyberg couldn't be killed by conventionaly weapons, over 2 world wars he had over 20 wounds.
The Commander of the the defence of Southern Englands RAF was a New Zealander, Keith PArk.
Commander of the Desert Air Force was a New Zealander, Coningham.

Charles Upham, only combatant to recieve the VC and Bar was a New Zealander.

HMNZS Achilles, Messed up the Graf Spree something Chronic.

Rommel said of the New Zealanders...(Aussies stole it<_< >_> <_<)
"Give me the New Zealand Division and i will take over the world."

Has to be the UK and Commonwealth - held their own for over a year against the might of Germany that had engulfed the entire European continent (except USSR) and then with the help of the US managed to create a foothold on 'Fortress Europe' and then defeat said war machine with aid of US and USSR.

And the US was part of the Dresden raid as well as the atomic bombings - and Tokyo was essentially a worse case of Dresden.

And the improved Sherman with the better gun - that was an American tank with a British weapon, replacing the popgun it had originally been armed with.

God save the Queen...lol
Firefly

...and Spain. And Portugal. And Sweden. And Ireland. And Switzerland. And Iceland
You are just being nasty, Spain was a de facto ally, Portugal is Spains inconvieniance, The Swedes were giving Iron Ore and Tungsten and other resources, like SS Charlamagne Division..., The Swiss were holding the Nazi Gold and the Irish weren't getting involved so they could get a real country, plus they still detained anyone that fell into their hands, Iceland struggles to be part of the European continent, more than Britain itself.
G3N13
12-06-2007, 16:04
Apart from the fight with soviet Russia, which I personally don't consider part of the world war, just a minor conflict in Russia's expansionismIt's minor only if you fail to see it in perspective: They sent 1 million men against Finland in 1939.

Considering that at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa - in 1941 - Soviet defenders had roughly 3 million troops covering the border which included ~900,000 at Finnish/northern axis front protecting St. Petersburg, Karelia and Murmansk.

...they we quite friendly with Nazis and only fought them near the end to expel them.That's because Finland had little choice in choosing it's allies.

Allies considered "helping" Finland in order to gain access to ore in northern scandinavia. OTOH had finland fallen Soviets would've had clear access to Atlantic (admittedly through northern Sweden again) and also an access to the ore mines.

Read the Winterwar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterwar) article in Wikipedia.

Secondly, Finland even had field synagogue (http://www.uta.fi/~tuulikki.vuonokari/fin-1.html) for the jewish soldiers.

All they did, was secure their own interests (probably the smartest of all countries involved in that case...)That's pretty much the case.
LEFTHANDEDSUPREMACIST
12-06-2007, 16:34
Britain and the Commonwealth&Empire.
Face it. We were in it from start from finish, with more ups and downs than a rollercoaster.
We survived the initial German blitzkrieg in France thanks to Dunkirk. We held out during the battle of Britain. We succesfully cracked the enigma codes with the world's first proper computer. We fought back Rommel. We held out in Malta. We dominated the Med. We held and countered against the Japanese. We struck back hard against Germany's cities (stuff the morality of it). We (along with our Commonwealth and free Country forces) fought bloody well in Italy. The famous St. Nazaire raid! We fought on every front in every possible way, and we won!
Then of course we had Churchill, Dowding (is that right?), Keith Park, Cunningham, Ramsay, Tovey, Montgomery, Alexander, Slim, Stirling, Harris, Bader, among others, and need I go on.
Britain did this only with American money. WW2 could not have been won with out the Russians who did most of the fighting and dieing or the US who bank rolled the entire war. With out Russian soldiers or American money and supplies there would have been an Axis victory. The US and Russia were equally important in this war.
Curu
12-06-2007, 16:53
Germany because they totally took on the entire free world more or less by themselves ( I'm not talking about Italy because Mussolini was much more concerned in keeping up his Big Brother state than actually fighting. New Rome my Oklahoma Backside ). I mean they held so many back and maintened an empire against EVERYONE. It is nigh unarguable that Germany, if not won the war would have at least kept it going a while longer if Hitler hadn't gone by the druggy happy land road in 1941. Why has no one mentioned Japan? They pretty much defeated China, and every other Asian country with almost no allied help and held it for a few years while actually defeating America. But in hindsight Pearl Harbor seems like a tad bit of a no-no for the overall welfare of the Japanese Empire lol.
Tarasovka
12-06-2007, 16:55
Best country in WW2 was...

Liechtenstein.

That is all.
NorthNorthumberland
12-06-2007, 17:33
Britain did this only with American money. WW2 could not have been won with out the Russians who did most of the fighting and dieing or the US who bank rolled the entire war. With out Russian soldiers or American money and supplies there would have been an Axis victory. The US and Russia were equally important in this war. If Britain had fallen with the rest of Europe in the early stages of the war. Then Germany would have most certainly have won the war because America probably wouldn’t have cared, and even if they did then how would they launch an invasion of Europe? Also without Britain to worry about Germany could have focused all attention on Russia and would probably have won. Plus, if Britain hadn’t declared war on Germany, it wouldn’t have been a world war in the first place, just a repeat of the war between France and Germany in the late 19th century. This applies to both The Great War and the Second World War.
Adaptus Astrates
12-06-2007, 18:43
If Britain had fallen with the rest of Europe in the early stages of the war. Then Germany would have most certainly have won the war because America probably wouldn’t have cared, and even if they did then how would they launch an invasion of Europe? Also without Britain to worry about Germany could have focused all attention on Russia and would probably have won. Plus, if Britain hadn’t declared war on Germany, it wouldn’t have been a world war in the first place, just a repeat of the war between France and Germany in the late 19th century. This applies to both The Great War and the Second World War.

Interesting.But that depends on one's point of view. It easy quite to say that would have happened and just as easy to say that (what you said) would not have happened and go on to outline an alternate course of events.

Also, when you say "If Britain had fallen..." a certain context must apply, in this case Op. Sealion succeeding. I know some historians say that Hitler MIGHT have gone easy on us if we capitulated, and of course some say we would have been beaten to the floor.

Besides, Sealion would have failled even if the Luftwaffe succeeded in wiping out the RAF in the south. We would have pushed them back (at a huge cost), but we would have done it, and the war may have unravelled as it really did, just lasting a bit longer.
Adaptus Astrates
12-06-2007, 18:46
Britain did this only with American money. WW2 could not have been won with out the Russians who did most of the fighting and dieing or the US who bank rolled the entire war. With out Russian soldiers or American money and supplies there would have been an Axis victory. The US and Russia were equally important in this war.

Fair argument. Still, final result that counts.
Volkinia
13-06-2007, 01:20
Why are there Poland and Romania as options..?

I bet they are the "Whatever" and "Who cares" options of the poll.
Soleichunn
13-06-2007, 02:38
Romania had the oil... *Runs off to make a coal to oil conversion plant*
Harlesburg
29-06-2007, 13:26
Romania had the oil... *Runs off to make a coal to oil conversion plant*
Nay, they were traitors, turncoats, asked for quarter from the Russians and got none.

Be off with ye!
Loyal_ Patriots
29-06-2007, 13:38
I am going to have to say that the USA was the best. Although the Germans were pretty good too...:D
Andaluciae
29-06-2007, 14:34
Kill the thread! Kill the thread! Kill the thread! Kill the thread! Kill the thread!
The blessed Chris
29-06-2007, 14:37
This is probably the worst OP I have ever seen. Congrats.

Edit:
http://webpages.acs.ttu.edu/charshey/pics/ThisThreadSucks.jpg

Wow, he's cute, even with that stupid face.

And that, sir, is easily the best thread steal ever. If only there was a smiley that reflected it, I would shake you warmly by the hand.:D
Soleichunn
29-06-2007, 14:50
Kill the thread! Kill the thread! Kill the thread! Kill the thread! Kill the thread!

Too late, this is a zombie thread: http://i16.tinypic.com/4yzg1eh.png
Soleichunn
29-06-2007, 14:53
Nay, they were traitors, turncoats, asked for quarter from the Russians and got none.

Be off with ye!

Don't look at me, I was just having a holiday in France at the time!

I built those conversion plants way before Romania.
Hoyteca
29-06-2007, 15:11
I would have to say the US. Why? Not because the US was basically the allies' factory safe from German bombers. Not because they had the best ocmmanders. Everyone knows Britian and Germany had better. At least in the European theatre. Not because the US Army Air Force had the balls to bomb German factories in broad daylight (would have been impossible to find at night. Those crafty Germans and their amazing ability to turn off lights.) while the British relied more on bombing German cities in the safety of nighttime's darkness.

One word makes me say US. Well, one town: Hiroshima. Say what you will about Hiroshima making the US more evil than Nazi Germany or uber-racist Japan. It ended the bloodiest and costliest war in recorded history. It proved to the world that nukes are bad. Without it, MAD (mutually assured destruction. Basically "you nuke me and I nuke you back") might never have prevented a nuclear war. Say what you will about Hiroshima being a civilian target. It was a military target. Japan is just a few islands, so they didn't have enough space to properly separate military from non-military. Couldn't hit a war factory without debris hitting a school.

You don't mess with a nation with nukes, especially during that short time when that nation is the only one with nukes.