INVASION!!!!!! What country do you trust to help?

[Thee Prisoner]

You hit the NAIL on the head.

the Prisoner

 

[Call Me Arizona]

I'm from the US and I'd view England as the most likely suspect to help us, we always seem to do that.

 

[Crimsonsniper]

Am I one of the only person who see's the irony in that most of the nations wanting the U.S. as their ally are also some of the most notrious for anti-american comments?

Personally I don't feel any single nation would be of much military aid to the U.S. in a conventional war, and a nuclear war means everyone loses. The only one's who have tended to benefit from past alliances are our allies, not ourselves. If anything these alliances are one-way in benefit and I can't name a single major conflict within the last 100 years in which our allies came to the aid of the U.S., only U.S. aid to allies in pre-existing conflicts. I'd approve of us instead having no allies but ourselves and letting the rest of the world fight their own battles.

you mean like the way without russia the whole world would be speaking german and japanese

and those brilliant victories when the US went in basically by themselves, such as korea and vietnam?

Arrogance quickly brings defeat, the best things have come when people put mindless patriotic clap trap aside and wrok together, whether in war or peace

Your lack of reading skills are showing. I stated that the U.S. has never required the aid (or received aid) from her allies in conflicts actually involving the american nation within the last 100 years. The U.S. joined into a conflict that was pre-existing and helped those allies in the conflict, it was not a 2-way street, the U.S. received virtually no aid from her allies in any war to date within this time period. The Russians were already fighting the Axis powers long before the U.S. joined the Allies. Or are you claiming that Russian soldiers were helping hold the Phillipines against Japanese imperial troops?

It's high time we stop trying to be friends with people who would just as soon stab us in the back if they would benefit from it.

Erm, the Aussies helped you out in Vietnam at America's request. Hell, they even conscripted us using what was called 'The death lottery' and televised on national TV. There were also 'Aussies' with suspiously British sounding accents as well (due to a tie up of treaties that the UK was bound up in.)

Further reading: http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/vietnam.asp

As an Aussie, would have to say the US. They bailed us out in the Pacific when most of our soldiers were busy in Europe (on behest of good old Winston.) Pretty much from then on we have sent troops whenever America has come knocking, so would expect them to return the favour.

Thats an interesting point, although I believe it goes more along the lines of a joint operation rather than actual alliance. Where the difference between the two is sometimes hard to recognize, it appears that at first Australia joined on behalf of South Vietnam (alongside many other nations who may or may not have been mutual allies or allied at all), they later pledged further support when America asked all countries involved to contribute more. Involvement may have had less to do with America and more to do with South Vietnam, however I don't know anything on the topic itself to render such a judgement.

 

[soapyshooter]

I'm American. I would pick Russia. The other superpower. If Russia is the one invading, then India. The sheer size of their military makes them dangerous. That and they have people like

Click me for ultimate badassery]

 

[Irridium]

American here. I would choose the U.K.

Sure we make fun of each other all the time, but they have stood by us through just about everything.

I'd choose the germans, but they always lose somehow.

Granted in terms of distance, and if we needed immediate aide, I would choose Canada.

 

[Plazmatic]

WOOT FOR CHINA!

yeah, except america is never attacked (china is also commi), and we *OUR MILITARY* would nuke any one country who dared disturb us. Only problem though, is that america would more likely be invading a country or something, it feels weird being on the bad guys team

 

[ObsessiveSketch]

From America, Gotta go with Britain. China's too much of a rival, Canada ain't THAT fond of us, and Mexico is out. Even Israel is too extremist, in my opinion...plus they're surrounded by enemies e_e The Brits have been through thick and thin, both with and against us, and I feel that our countries are the most cordial and friendly with each other.

 

[Triaed]

The US, of course... they will invade anyone
Just kidding, it is good to have them on one's side

 

[Thee Prisoner]

snip

Excuses. It's their fault they failed to properly prepare for any type of invasion. They just let the nazis maneuver around it? And after a year of preparation they shouldn't have had too much smaller an army than Germany. I'm not saying 1 on 1 that France should have won, but as quickly and easily as they fell? And I knew about the Maginot line, but that isn't much help when you can just walk around it now is it? Yes I know it wasn't that simple but France really should have seen it coming. There's no excuse why after one year of building up defenses your country falls after 2 or 3 months. I wouldn't call the German tactics a sucker punch, I would call it common sense. Or stupidity on Frances part, you be the judge. Why pass through the enemy lines when it's easier to go around. France has been a joke since Napoleon in my opinion. They did okay in WW1 but were extremely close to falling early in the war even then.

Germany went around the Maginot line by illegally passing forces through neutral countries. An effective and clever tactic, but also one that "broke the rules". It might seem silly that wars have any rules at all, but even Germany had a tendency to uphold these sort of agreements (like refusing to fight under false flags). This out-maneuvering, which had been predicted, though the British and French forces expected an attack furhter south, allowed Germany to blitzkreig their way into France. The mobile assault by the German's worked much akin to "Shock-and-Awe" tactics - an overwhelming display of power which surprised and demoralised the Allied forces.

You talk about one year being enough to mobilise and rebuild an army - yet in the context, Germany had been rebuilding its forces for a number of years. France could not just pull together a massive, modern army even in a year's time. Britain, likewise, had undergone preperations long in advance (such as pouring funds into the airforce), but was still woefully deficient. Britain went into the war with crappy, ineffectual post WWI tanks. Had all that money not been spent on the airforce, Britain would have still been using bi-planes (the navy used dated bi-plane models throughout the war).

Why wasn't the UK and France better equipped? Well, they (like Germany) were still recovering from a serious Depression. Britain could bearly afford spending all that cash on the airforce in the first place. France had the added problem of trying to rebuild it's country, which was damaged more so than any other by the First World War. The governments of both countries would not have been able to justify building up massive forces in such an economically unstable period, especially as the concept of another war right after was abhorrant to the post WWI public. Germany however had the opposite philosophy - humiliated and crippled by WWI, the people were more than willing to "take back their land and pride". To the nazi population, military action seemed not only justifiable, but patriotic.

The French had the largest standing army at that time but you are right on, it wasn't a modern army. British and French armies were still fighting with WWI tactics and weapons(and really tactics from many years before.)

You nailed it. Good job,

the Prisoner.

 

[Treefingers]

Canada, because it always helps to have a million dog sled teams. To help devour my enemies, oh and Curling bombs across no man's land will help great deals. That or England because, America and England are like brother and sister even if we did fight them over 200 years ago. (But really, who holds a grudge against a country for that long?)

Also three more reason why Canada would be an amazing ally,
1.) They're pretty good at burning down capitols
2.) They've actually got a quite skilled military force even if they're currently deconstructing their navy
3.) It's fucking Canada they're the second biggest land mass in the world besides Russia.

Russia has the biggest landmass, yet they are quite adept at losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in wars.

EDIT: Would you really want that on your side? Sure, maybe you can crush the invader with numbers, but that only goes so far.

Russia lost many more soldiers in WWII yes, but not because they are crappy.

Russia is the unsung hero of WWII.

Russia is NOT the hero of WWII. There is a large portion of scholars that believe that the Allies could have won the war even if Hitler had managed to defeat the Russians. In fact, Hitler wasn't going up against the Russians as much as he was going up against the winter. He made the same mistake as Napoleon, and it ended up costing him. The massive amounts of fuel his tank divisions needed were barely being covered, and the snow covered landscape did not help in this disastrous escapade. If Russia had maintained a neutrality the whole time (which wouldn't have happened due to Stalin's greed), the allies still would have been able to topple the German war machine. Russia cost him the fight, yes, but it was not solely on Russia's massive shoulders to win the war.

I'm not saying that Russia is the hero of WWII, just that they are overlooked far too often.

 

[Xpwn3ntial]

I'm an American, so... Germany. They don't lose wars, they take extended retreats.

 

[real life potato]

Canada, because it always helps to have a million dog sled teams. To help devour my enemies, oh and Curling bombs across no man's land will help great deals. That or England because, America and England are like brother and sister even if we did fight them over 200 years ago. (But really, who holds a grudge against a country for that long?)

Also three more reason why Canada would be an amazing ally,
1.) They're pretty good at burning down capitols
2.) They've actually got a quite skilled military force even if they're currently deconstructing their navy
3.) It's fucking Canada they're the second biggest land mass in the world besides Russia.

Russia has the biggest landmass, yet they are quite adept at losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in wars.

EDIT: Would you really want that on your side? Sure, maybe you can crush the invader with numbers, but that only goes so far.

Russia lost many more soldiers in WWII yes, but not because they are crappy.

Russia is the unsung hero of WWII.

Russia is NOT the hero of WWII. There is a large portion of scholars that believe that the Allies could have won the war even if Hitler had managed to defeat the Russians. In fact, Hitler wasn't going up against the Russians as much as he was going up against the winter. He made the same mistake as Napoleon, and it ended up costing him. The massive amounts of fuel his tank divisions needed were barely being covered, and the snow covered landscape did not help in this disastrous escapade. If Russia had maintained a neutrality the whole time (which wouldn't have happened due to Stalin's greed), the allies still would have been able to topple the German war machine. Russia cost him the fight, yes, but it was not solely on Russia's massive shoulders to win the war.

I'm not saying that Russia is the hero of WWII, just that they are overlooked far too often.

You said yourself that it is THE unsung hero. Not AN unsung hero, THE unsung hero. I agree that the Russian forces was a huge part in the war, but I have not heard anyone tell me otherwise.

 

[AMMO Kid]

Russia hands down. Or maybe China. Or maybe some other communist country. but in all seriousness I would pick South Korea

 

[Teddy Roosevelt]

Canada, because it always helps to have a million dog sled teams. To help devour my enemies, oh and Curling bombs across no man's land will help great deals. That or England because, America and England are like brother and sister even if we did fight them over 200 years ago. (But really, who holds a grudge against a country for that long?)

Also three more reason why Canada would be an amazing ally,
1.) They're pretty good at burning down capitols
2.) They've actually got a quite skilled military force even if they're currently deconstructing their navy
3.) It's fucking Canada they're the second biggest land mass in the world besides Russia.

Russia has the biggest landmass, yet they are quite adept at losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in wars.

EDIT: Would you really want that on your side? Sure, maybe you can crush the invader with numbers, but that only goes so far.

Russia lost many more soldiers in WWII yes, but not because they are crappy.

Russia is the unsung hero of WWII.

Russia is NOT the hero of WWII. There is a large portion of scholars that believe that the Allies could have won the war even if Hitler had managed to defeat the Russians. In fact, Hitler wasn't going up against the Russians as much as he was going up against the winter. He made the same mistake as Napoleon, and it ended up costing him. The massive amounts of fuel his tank divisions needed were barely being covered, and the snow covered landscape did not help in this disastrous escapade. If Russia had maintained a neutrality the whole time (which wouldn't have happened due to Stalin's greed), the allies still would have been able to topple the German war machine. Russia cost him the fight, yes, but it was not solely on Russia's massive shoulders to win the war.

Yes, they were. Without Stalin, the Allies wouldn't have had the resources to pull it off. America could never have defeated Nazi Germany. We weren't powerful enough. Britain and America could have held off Hitler, but not defeated him. It took the power of the mobilized USSR to win the war in Europe.

Also, Stalin was much more concerned with industrializing Russia, not with conquering Germany. Also, unlike Napoleon, the Winter did not harry the invaders the whole way through. Winter didn't win the war. If the Germans had struck right for Moscow, they would have bypassed the winter and won, but they weren't defeated with the arrival of winter, just stalled. Russia's victory was due to her sheer numbers of soldiers, who fought viciously. In fact, there is a record of a German rifle company which was reported attacked by an entire division of Soviets troops armed with shovels and hammers. The ferocity of Stalin's Red Army was incredible, as was his ability to replace casualties.

So the army of Finland was so badass that it managed to defend itself against the Soviets for as long as it did? The leadership of the Red Army was severely damaged when Stalin took power. After murdering thousands of army officers, it was left a shell of what it could have been. Many of the "senior" officers that were in charge after the purge were highly inept at combat, which cost the Red Army thousands more casualties than needed. Just because a rifle company was attacked by a division of Soviets with shovels and hammers doesn't mean an army is "mobilized" and "vicious." The war could have been won without Russia, though it helped shorten the war by many years.

It means they were vicious fighters. Anyway, Finland held out, but lost, and that Red Army was not the mobilized economy at work. Regardless of the purging, the Red Army was a powerful machine once mobilized with conscripts and whatnot. After all, their tactics were very attrition based, and what better weapon is there for attrition than cannon-fodder?

Anyway, watch the World at War, for God's sake, before you say Hitler could have beaten the Allies, and read as many books as my father and I have, which is honestly more on his part and an incredible amount, but we still have that knowledge under our belts.

Aside from a pissing contest I feared I may have started with that comment, but had Hitler's resources been put into the west and had he gotten access to middle-eastern oil, we would have lost, because we wouldn't have had to capacity to win.

 

[SimpleChimp]

To be totally Honest, if the US was attacked we wouldn't really have to enlist the help of ours neighbors. I would enlist the help of the country neighboring the aggressor. Think about it, we have troops stationed all over the world, if any one attacks us we just take the army soldier out of say Germany's base and march them into france/italy/poland along with the German armed forces and they will have to withdraw from america.

If its north korea attacking we attack up from south korea, then enlist the American's in Japan to attack, then get a sympathetic ally in the region to swarm in like a drunken frat boy and start mass chaos as the damned Koreans run with their dongs between their legs.

 

[ratmen]

Probably USA, Russia, or China

because they have alot of weapons..

 

[PrimoThePro]

Japan. They never stop. And Canadians. (We are tough fighters)

 

[Blitzkrieg8]

my secret army of penguins i made in the south pole

 

[Con Carne]

This guy FTW!

Sorry, someone had to do it!