Were there only wusses in WWII besides Russians, Germans and Americans?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


I am well aware of that. But at least half of the Netherlands is south of that bridge.

Yes, but Market Garden did little to liberate any of it. The goal was a singular supply route and a few key bridges, and hope to encircle the Germans. Since it failed at it's furthest point, the Germans were not encircled and regular old ground fighting not connected to Market Garden was needed to clear them out.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


I am well aware of that. But at least half of the Netherlands is south of that bridge.

The parts that were kept did not amount to half of the Netherlands.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Mmm, yes, advancing across all that empty ocean. So much more difficult than dense jungle terrain in monsoonal weather.

Yes, advancing island by island across that "empty" ocean was surely much easier than attacking Burma from adjacent India, a major British stronghold...

On most of the islands Japanese forces were near starvation anyway. The genius of the Imperial Japanese War staff had considered making adequate supply provisions for the troops as beneath their dignity.

The troops in Burma were ppretty near starvation too.

IIRC the British made two major offensive drives in North Africa before the final one launched at El Alamein. The first was interrupted by the need to redeploy some of their troops to the Balkans in the spring of 1941, the second was interrupted by the need to redeploy some of their troops to Southeast Asia in early 1942. You have to give the British credit for the sheer scope of their war effort. The American efforts were directed in two different directions, but the huge US industrial base lay in the center. The British war effort had to be routed around Africa to reach North Africa, and then on across the Indian ocean to the Pacific front.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Ecthy
The comparison of 250km v. 600 km is nonsensical. Had Belgium been 800km deep it would have fallen all the same.

It's fairly reasonable to assume, that if Belgium also had been a country of many millions of square kilometers, also had had many dozens of millions of people, also had had harsh winters, and also had situated an industrial complex beyond the reach of any invader, it too would have fought a pretty reasonable war. And at least we didn't shot our officers in a silly ideological fit prior to the war.

[Sprayber]

I guess the question everyone should really ask themselves is which country could have won the war single handedly.

could the UK have taken on Germany and Japan at the same time
How about the Soviet Union (I realize the SU never fought the Japanese until the end)
The US
Canada

[Asher]

Keep in mind the US fought the European war when the Germans were already on their heels.

[Asher]

And I think Canada could fight the war singlehandedly pretty well.

I would love to see Germany in world war II try to conquer a land as huge and diverse as Canada. They just don't have enough people for that.

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢

It's fairly reasonable to assume, that if Belgium also had been a country of many millions of square kilometers, also had had many dozens of millions of people, also had had harsh winters, and also had situated an industrial complex beyond the reach of any invader, it too would have fought a pretty reasonable war. And at least we didn't shot our officers in a silly ideological fit prior to the war.

Don't forget selecting a Cité de Stalin to distract Hitler from Brussels.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Asher
Keep in mind the US fought the European war when the Germans were already on their heels.

Yep. Thanks to the Russians, who recieved many hundreds of thousands of trucks tanks, and stuff that goes boom from the United States. Not to mention that the USA pretty much armed the entirety of the assorted "Free-French/Polish/what have you" armies. Or kept the UK fiscally afloat.

If the US really didn't do anything up until that point, Russia would have gone under and Britain would have had to cut a deal.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Asher
And I think Canada could fight the war singlehandedly pretty well.

I would love to see Germany in world war II try to conquer a land as huge and diverse as Canada. They just don't have enough people for that.

only because of the southern neighbors.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sprayber
could the UK have taken on Germany and Japan at the same time

Yes, given that we came out with over 50% of the industrial capacity of the planet.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
only because of the southern neighbors.

No, I'm talking about the fact that Canada is so vast and sparsely populated that even if you took control of the major cities, you still have helluva lot more to do. And in the process of moving their troops across all of Canada, they'd spread them so thin to the point of being rather useless.

[Drake Tungsten]

Why would you have to conquer all of Canada? What exactly are guys in the Yukon going to do to an enemy that controls all the major population centers in the south?

[Asher]

You obviously have no idea how valuable the resources are up there.

The stuff in the major cities are offices, all of the real, intrinsic value of the nation is scattered across the massive natural resources.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Why would you have to conquer all of Canada? What exactly are guys in the Yukon going to do to an enemy that controls all the major population centers in the south?

Organize moose suicide squads?