What are the top badass countries of WW2?

[pedrito_elcabra]

4. Britain, for taking the wrong side, being mediocre in everything and losing an empire in the process.

Britain was arguably the country on the winning side which lost the most, and in the most stupid way too.

That doesn't mean it took the wrong side.

It took the right side at the wrong moment while doing plenty of ill-timed and badly executed moves, and would not let go of it even when things were looking more than grim (kinda like an english bulldog holding a bone I guess).

It's so very ironic that the UK in both wars decided to antagonize Germany, which was not a serious threat, and to befriend the US, which always had the disintegration of the UK colonial empire as a long term goal.

But they took the right side nonetheless in WW2, for moral reasons and because they ended up on the winning side.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

And what are we supposed to think of that........ Nice snake, you bit a crocodile?

What are you trying to say?

 

[Scutatus]

Apology to Tharkun.

So long as people are not being abusive, are not hurting anyone, and are not just trying to stir up trouble for the sake of it, we are all entitled to our opinion. I got in your face and challenged you, because your statements to my eyes were so contentious that I really thought you might just be trouble-making - but I was wrong to do so.

You apparently do sincerely believe the claims you made, and whether I or anyone else agrees with your stance really doesn't matter.

I disagree with what you say, but I respect your right to say it, and I was wrong to challenge you the way I did.

I apologise for my shoddy behaviour unreservedly. Sorry.

 

[Pyrrha]

Same for expecting a nation to fight for their dignity with every available means regardless of the odds.

Allow me to disagree with you. This thread seems to define 'badass' countries from a purely military point of view. However, 'fight[ing] [...] with every available means' doesn't necessarily mean taking up arms and having the best army. By what you seem to imply, Denmark, but then Luxembourg as well, since I'm far more familiar with its history, should be ashamed of surrendering without a fight. Knowing the situation at the time, Luxembourg, as an example, had an army of less than 600 people. So please, would you explain to me how shameful it is to surrender to Germany without a fight?

There is, in my opinion, a huge difference between 'fighting for dignity' and wasting lives. Again, using Luxembourg as an example, there were fights. No, we did not have an army and yes, the government left the country to surrender as the Germans invaded. However, the fight was real, it was called resistance. While Luxembourg was occupied, people who were conscripted to fight for the nazis deserted in huge (relative) numbers at the risk of their own lives to join the free forces and the allies, and the people left at home resisted the best way they could: without actual violence; which as you might expect, ended up badly. The government, now in exile, did what they could to help the war effort through various campaigns of propaganda.

I'm not going to pretend Luxembourg made any real change. We had no army to speak of, the resistance was insignificant given the size of the country, a mere 1% of the estimated jew population of the country survived the war and most of all, there was collaboration, like in every other occupied country. But is the size of the impact really important, given the odds? I don't belive so, because whatever the results, the odds were hugely against those countries from the beginning of the war to its end. Yet, people, civilians, risked their lives and stood up against the nazis. Some countries resisted better than others and, in the case of Denmark, I really believe they deserve an honourable mention for 'most badass people of the war' (if not country) after managing to pull off 'one of the largest actions of collective resistance to aggression in the countries occupied by Nazi Germany', without sending their people to die senselessly.

 

[MGL 86]

Soviet Russia.

Especially the generation between 1900 to 1950.

Beaten by Japanese in 1905, revolt in 1905, beaten by Germany non stop 1914-1917, beat each other 1918-1922. Then Stalin came to beat them some more. As if this is not enough Lebensraum Hitler came and almost destroyed them once and for all.

But in the end, they rose and went on to became super power.

This is pretty badass generation. They just went on while continuosly beaten and showed why world call them bear

 

[Scutatus]

Soviet Russia.

Especially the generation between 1900 to 1950.

Beaten by Japanese in 1905, revolt in 1905, beaten by Germany non stop 1914-1917, beat each other 1918-1922. Then Stalin came to beat them some more. As if this is not enough Lebensraum Hitler came and almost destroyed them once and for all.

But in the end, they rose and went on to became super power.

This is pretty badass generation. They just went on while continuosly beaten and showed why world call them bear

You have to respect that kind of endurance. The death toll must have been staggering though. Just as well they had a vast population.

 

[Vonboe]

Also from a quick wikipedia search it seems like the Danish commander-in-chief (William Wain Prior) prior to the Danish occupation encouraged the Danish government to increase the strength of the army, but was rejected by the government. And "When Germany invaded Denmark in 1940, he argued that the Danish army should actively defend the country, even when Germany threatened through the dropping the OPROP! leaflets to bomb the capital of Copenhagen", again the the Danish government rejected. So I don't think it's 100% justified to paint the Danes as cowards, at least not the military.

 

[Tharkun]

Allow me to disagree with you. This thread seems to define 'badass' countries from a purely military point of view. However, 'fight[ing] [...] with every available means' doesn't necessarily mean taking up arms and having the best army. By what you seem to imply, Denmark, but then Luxembourg as well, since I'm far more familiar with its history, should be ashamed of surrendering without a fight. Knowing the situation at the time, Luxembourg, as an example, had an army of less than 600 people. So please, would you explain to me how shameful it is to surrender to Germany without a fight?

There is, in my opinion, a huge difference between 'fighting for dignity' and wasting lives. Again, using Luxembourg as an example, there were fights. No, we did not have an army and yes, the government left the country to surrender as the Germans invaded. However, the fight was real, it was called resistance. While Luxembourg was occupied, people who were conscripted to fight for the nazis deserted in huge (relative) numbers at the risk of their own lives to join the free forces and the allies, and the people left at home resisted the best way they could: without actual violence; which as you might expect, ended up badly. The government, now in exile, did what they could to help the war effort through various campaigns of propaganda.

I'm not going to pretend Luxembourg made any real change. We had no army to speak of, the resistance was insignificant given the size of the country, a mere 1% of the estimated jew population of the country survived the war and most of all, there was collaboration, like in every other occupied country. But is the size of the impact really important, given the odds? I don't belive so, because whatever the results, the odds were hugely against those countries from the beginning of the war to its end. Yet, people, civilians, risked their lives and stood up against the nazis. Some countries resisted better than others and, in the case of Denmark, I really believe they deserve an honourable mention for 'most badass people of the war' (if not country) after managing to pull off 'one of the largest actions of collective resistance to aggression in the countries occupied by Nazi Germany', without sending their people to die senselessly.

I said " fight with every available means" and that includes not only organized warfare but guerilla warfare as well. I don't know about Luxemburg's resistance record but I trust you on this, so... kudos to the men who fought the occupation regime. As for Denmark (which was my original remark), as far as I know, there was zero resistance movement and it remained the safest place to be in the Reich until the very end.

 

[FieldMedic]

Going to say Australia and Canada. Colonial bros!

 

[PanosB3]

Going to say Australia and Canada. Colonial bros!

What? Australia???

 

[FieldMedic]

Sure why not? The defense of Tobruk and their efforts in the Pacific were very admirable!

 

[Scutatus]

I said " fight with every available means" and that includes not only organized warfare but guerilla warfare as well. I don't know about Luxemburg's resistance record but I trust you on this, so... kudos to the men who fought the occupation regime. As for Denmark (which was my original remark), as far as I know, there was zero resistance movement and it remained the safest place to be in the Reich until the very end.

Tharkun, respectfully, the nationwide effort that occurred in October 1943 -
to ensure the mass evacuation of almost all the thousands of Jews in Denmark - is not what I would call "zero resistance". It's probably not the kind of resistance you meant, but it was still resistance. After all, anywhere else anyone trying to protect Jews had been imprisoned, tortured or simply shot. Yet Denmark as a nation collectively saved almost all of theirs in defiance of Hitler's orders. That has to be some form of resistance, some kind of bravery?

 

[bestmajor]

UK + Finland

 

[DazKaz]

Tharkun, respectfully, the nationwide effort that occurred in October 1943 -
to ensure the mass evacuation of almost all the thousands of Jews in Denmark - is not what I would call "zero resistance". It's probably not the kind of resistance you meant, but it was still resistance. After all, anywhere else anyone trying to protect Jews had been imprisoned, tortured or simply shot. Yet Denmark as a nation collectively saved almost all of theirs in defiance of Hitler's orders. That has to be some form of resistance, some kind of bravery?

That was very admirable as I have already mentioned.

They could have done a lot more however, especially during the phoney war.

I have always had a bit of a problem sympathising with neutral countries who get attacked by major powers, having made no effort to align with a treaty, to one side or the other.
Denmark spent very little of their GNP on defence between the wars, or in establishing a defensive pact with one of the major powers.
When Germany started its aggressive expansion, they, like the other neutrals should have chosen a side.
It would have allowed France and UK to establish a proper defence along their border (assuming they didn't choose the German side).
It may have even prevented the war altogether, if Hitler could not predict that the neutrals would stay neutral.

This is a quote from Churchill early in the war (with regard to their continuing to trade with Germany), who obviously felt the same way as I do about neutrals:

"At present their plight is lamentable and will become much worse. They bow humbly in fear of German threats of violence, each one hoping that if he feeds the crocodile enough the crocodile will eat him last and that the storm will pass before their turn comes to be devoured. What would happen if these neutrals, with one spontaneous impulse were to do their duty in accordance with the Covenant of the League [of Nations] and stand together with the British and French Empires against aggression and wrong?."

 

[jcd000]

At present their plight is lamentable and will become much worse. They bow humbly in fear of German threats of violence, each one hoping that if he feeds the crocodile enough the crocodile will eat him last and that the storm will pass before their turn comes to be devoured. What would happen if these neutrals, with one spontaneous impulse were to do their duty in accordance with the Covenant of the League [of Nations] and stand together with the British and French Empires against aggression and wrong?.

The Great powers were always on their side and not on the side of good, or the side of minor countries. As such they are not very trustworthy don't you think mr Churchill?
Trusting the UK over Germany when Germany is quite a bit closer is pretty dangerous imo.
Especially after what happened to the Czechs and Poland whom the allies failed to protect despite treaties.

PS. Had the UK stood up to Hitler in Munich, many more countries may have stood against Hitler too.

 

[keynes2.0]

PS. Had the UK stood up to Hitler in Munich, many more countries may have stood against Hitler too.

Had the UK stood up to Hitler before he had conquered any territory, people on the internet 80 years later would use that as evidence that the UK was the real aggressor and Germany should have been allowed to have ethnically German territories.

 

[jcd000]

Had the UK stood up to Hitler before he had conquered any territory, people on the internet 80 years later would use that as evidence that the UK was the real aggressor and Germany should have been allowed to have ethnically German territories.

Hmm, so you mean that one has to know the intents of his opponent to be able to correctly assess the situation and act as needed, but before Munich this was impossible?

On the other hand, the UK pretty much sold out the Czechs with whom they had an alliance in Munich. So they cannot be much better either.
So if i'm e.g. Belgium, why would i want to invite German hostility on myself by openly entering the allies when the allies may betray me too?

 

[Scutatus]

That was very admirable as I have already mentioned.

They could have done a lot more however, especially during the phoney war.

I have always had a bit of a problem sympathising with neutral countries who get attacked by major powers, having made no effort to align with a treaty, to one side or the other.
Denmark spent very little of their GNP on defence during the wars, or in establishing a defensive pact with one of the major powers.
When Germany started its aggressive expansion, they, like the other neutrals should have chosen a side.
It would have allowed France and UK to establish a proper defence along their border (assuming they didn't choose the German side).
It may have even prevented the war altogether, if Hitler could not predict that the neutrals would stay neutral.

This is a quote from Churchill early in the war (with regard to their continuing to trade with Germany), who obviously felt the same way as I do about neutrals:

"At present their plight is lamentable and will become much worse. They bow humbly in fear of German threats of violence, each one hoping that if he feeds the crocodile enough the crocodile will eat him last and that the storm will pass before their turn comes to be devoured. What would happen if these neutrals, with one spontaneous impulse were to do their duty in accordance with the Covenant of the League [of Nations] and stand together with the British and French Empires against aggression and wrong?."

Good words Mr. Churchill, and probably right. However, it wouldn't have helped Denmark all that well. The British had the advantage of the English Channel - a little water and space with which to help fend Germany off. So did Norway. But Denmark had no such advantage. Flat Panzer friendly Denmark shared it's very borders with Germany - and had but the smallest of token armies. I'm not sure what it could have done as part of this mass "standing together" before it was overrun, just as it was. Maybe if that alliance of Neutral countries had all massed their forces in Denmark... but probably not even then.

Besides, alliances and standing together are all well and good, but it didn't help Poland at all - a tragic sad irony for Britain's "Casus Belli" for entering the war in the first place. By which I mean, I don't think Denmark's position was very tenable, whatever it did.

 

[keynes2.0]

Hmm, so you mean that one has to know the intents of his opponent to be able to correctly assess the situation

No, that was not my meaning at all.

My meaning was that if the UK had stood up to Germany before Germany conquered territory, armchair historians would condemn the UK for doing that. Whereas in the real world we have armchair historians condemning the UK for not doing that. Either way, the armchair historians are going to condemn the UK.

 

[Scutatus]

No, that was not my meaning at all.

My meaning was that if the UK had stood up to Germany before Germany conquered territory, armchair historians would condemn the UK for doing that. Whereas in the real world we have armchair historians condemning the UK for not doing that. Either way, the armchair historians are going to condemn the UK.

Ah woe, we are but the kicking stool of the world.