Who did more to help the Allies win WW2 Fance or Austrailia?

[Duke Malcolm]

We didn't hide on our island until the US helped. We defended our shores well. We defended our Empire slighlty less well, but managed nonetheless. Had we been bordering Germany, we would have been relatively successful in defending our borders.

[Redleg]

We didn't hide on our island until the US helped. We defended our shores well. We defended our Empire slighlty less well, but managed nonetheless. Had we been bordering Germany, we would have been relatively successful in defending our borders.

Actually this is incorrect. The BEF was handed its collective rearend during the Invasion of France - just like the French were defeated by the German attack.

Hindsight is always 20-20. The French lost because the Germans used tactics that were French were not prepared for. France invisioned the war being fought like WW1 - and Germany fought a completely different type of war. France and England were equally unprepared for the German Attack into France.

[Duke Malcolm]

Britain, for God's sake, Britain!

And superior tactics like :- Going around the French defences. If Britain was in the same situation as France, then the Imperial Armies would have massed to defend the Mother Country. The BEF wasn't the whole Army, unlike the French Army.

[71-hour Ahmed]

France was the more powerful and important country by far, she was just unlucky enough to have a military commanded by out of date strategy and so gt crushed. France didn't really contribute much to allied victory after that (resistance was minimally important) but she didn't impair it much either so it balances out. Australia wasn't that important overall, we wouldn't have lost much without it - the Japanese would simply have held more positions in SE Asia before the Yanks crushed them

As for comment about this thread being about "French bashing" grow up... its a fair question that Gawain asked regarding nations contribution and hence subsequent recognition. Moreover Britain can't be described as cowering and waiting for America... the USA wasn't expected (or expecting ) to enter the war until the Japanese got a bit stooooopid at Pearl Harbour, and the British were fighting in Africa all that time. In fact even if America had remained neutral its not impossible that Britain (with lend-lease help) would have still won in Africa, Germany being focussed on the Soviet Union.

[Lazul]

argh, why does it allways lead to talk about who did the most in WW2?

If the Germans had the chance to meet their enemies one by one they would crush them all.
BUT, since they had to face them all at once they lost. The German Warmachine was far superior against the other nations.
They had less tanks, and crappy tank in the begging but due to the fact that the germans had superios officers they won took Franche.
The allies won only couse they worked together.

as for the UN... yeah, it crap really.

[Adrian II]

argh, why does it allways lead to talk about who did the most in WW2?

Yup. It's interesting to see what kind of reasoning comes up, though. You know what they say about the political uses of rewriting history. France's UNSC seat is a pain the Neocon butt, so let's rewrite its history to make it look as if they didn't deserve it in the first place. The reason for that not being their diverging political views or different national interests, but a moral deficit that hopefully appeals to uninformed Americans: cowardice. An open & shut case of Neocon propaganda, methinks.

[Redleg]

Yup. It's interesting to see what kind of reasoning comes up, though. You know what they say about the political uses of rewriting history. France's UNSC seat is a pain the Neocon butt, so let's rewrite its history to make it look as if they didn't deserve it in the first place. The reason for that not being their diverging political views or different national interests, but a moral deficit that hopefully appeals to uninformed Americans: cowardice. An open & shut case of Neocon propaganda, methinks.

LOL - your own baised views is spewing forth from the cess pool in which you claim is the Neocon view. Your propaganda is no better then the Neocon propaganda.

When I decide to bash the French it will be for something other then WW2.

[PanzerJaeger]

What do you suppose the result would have been had the British had a long border with the Germans...or the Australians? No nation that had a land border with the Germans could resist them except the Russians, who had a huge military and it cost them 20 million dead. No the French couldn't stop the Germans but then who could? It would not be for many years that any nation had the capacity to do so. If New England had been next door to the Germans in 1939, I think the results wouldn't have been very pleasant.

The French had superior numbers in their army. They had a huge defense system which limited that "long border". They had superior tanks and other equipment. France was simply inferior to Germany, just like Britain, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Greece, Yugoslavia, Austria, The Netherlands, and Russia. All of their militaries failed in the face of Germany before combining to finally topple the country.

Even though im one of those evil conservatives, i dont think there is any reason to bash the french as bad soldiers. If you do that, you'll have to bash all of Europe besides Germany (which is fine too ).

[PanzerJaeger]

Yup. It's interesting to see what kind of reasoning comes up, though. You know what they say about the political uses of rewriting history. France's UNSC seat is a pain the Neocon butt, so let's rewrite its history to make it look as if they didn't deserve it in the first place. The reason for that not being their diverging political views or different national interests, but a moral deficit that hopefully appeals to uninformed Americans: cowardice. An open & shut case of Neocon propaganda, methinks.

Which Neocons are pushing to get the french kicked off the Security Council?

[sharrukin]

What do you suppose the result would have been had the British had a long border with the Germans...or the Australians? No nation that had a land border with the Germans could resist them except the Russians, who had a huge military and it cost them 20 million dead. No the French couldn't stop the Germans but then who could? It would not be for many years that any nation had the capacity to do so. If New England had been next door to the Germans in 1939, I think the results wouldn't have been very pleasant.

The French had superior numbers in their army. They had a huge defense system which limited that "long border". They had superior tanks and other equipment. France was simply inferior to Germany, just like Britain, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Greece, Yugoslavia, Austria, The Netherlands, and Russia. All of their militaries failed in the face of Germany before combining to finally topple the country.

Even though im one of those evil conservatives, i dont think there is any reason to bash the french as bad soldiers. If you do that, you'll have to bash all of Europe besides Germany (which is fine too ).

I agree with you on this one hundred percent! The French could have won the battle for France in 1940 if they had understood modern warfare. Their equipment was good and they had the numbers and quality needed to do it. They lacked good NCO's and officers.

The British were I believe soldier for soldier better than his French counterpart. He may even have been better than his German counterpart. The British were hampered by the same problem the French were, which is incompetant leadership. Their tanks being designed by German secret agents didn't help (at least this is the only logical explanation I can find for what they produced).
As one German general said of the British "Lions led by Donkey's".

As for all the French bashing, what is that all about? Is it just because they fought by the American side in the First Gulf War and didn't in the Second?

[Redleg]

Britain, for God's sake, Britain!

And superior tactics like :- Going around the French defences. If Britain was in the same situation as France, then the Imperial Armies would have massed to defend the Mother Country. The BEF wasn't the whole Army, unlike the French Army.

You are forgetting that the British forces were fighting with the same WW1 tactics of the French. The French and British had the better tanks during the time of the Invasion of France. Germany had the better tactics. The French Army in 1940 happen to be larger then the British Army if I remember correctly also. The BEF happen to contain the major combat units of the British Army at the time that were not engaged in the colonies. In a lightening attack such as the Germans pulled off against France - the colonies would not have had time to send troops to defend the motherland during the initial attack. And Britian did not have the land to trade for time like Russia or for that matter the United States

The English would not have fared much better then the French - if England was located with a land border next to Belgium or Germany.

For that matter nor would the United States against an initial land assualt with the Germany Army of 1940. The United States would have had to do the same tactics of Russia to survive the onslaught of the German attack - trade land for time.

[sharrukin]

We didn't hide on our island until the US helped. We defended our shores well. We defended our Empire slighlty less well, but managed nonetheless. Had we been bordering Germany, we would have been relatively successful in defending our borders.

Of the 50 or so infantry divisions available to england at the time, only 8 where fully equipped first line, and a further 12 where partially equipped second line. The rest where hardly worthy of the name "infantry division" consisting of reservists and Home Guardsmen with little training and equipment.

Most of these 'divisions' were simply light infantry grouped together and not in fact divisions in any real sense.

The Home Guard (Local Defence Volunteers ;LDV) would have been both valiant and pathetic due to the fact that they had no equipment and no training. Early units mostly wore civilian clothing and were equipped with rifles, shotguns, pikes or whatever else they could find. Some american .30 rifles from WW1, molotov cocktails and later thompsons smg's.

An Eye-Witness Account- By Ronald Ashford, born 1922

" In 1940, I was a volunteer in the Local Defence Volunteers (LDV), later to be renamed the Home Guard and I was one of thirty men serving under First World War veteran; Sir basil Eddis.

After drilling without weapons for some three months, we were each issued with 303 rifles and four clips of 303 ammunition- each clip holding five rounds."

That's a total of 20 bullets! Scarryyyy If you think THIS was going to stop the German army then you are as deluded as the French High Command was!

The United States would have been in some ways in a worse position than the Russians as New England held most of their industrial capacity at the time and they, unlike the Russians, lacked a large army or air force. The technical expertise in the American population would however have gone a long way to offset this.