In which World War 2 army you should have fought?

I plan on visiting Fredericksburg this year.

@Narvik:

….and the slaughter of Indians during 1800 was not pointless and unjust ?

The slaughter of Indians in the 1800s does not justify American intervention during WWI. Allied victory in WWI did not make the world a better place. It did not result in self-determination, the end of militarism, or any of the other idealistic principles for which Woodrow Wilson said he’d fought. Its main short-term effect was to allow France to exact a petty, unjust, cruel revenge against Germany for its victory in the Franco-Prussian War. The longer term consequence was to rob Central and Eastern Europe of its ability to resist Soviet invasion. According to former Soviet intelligence operative Suvarov, the main reason for the Spviet Union’s invasion of Poland in 1919 was the desire to continue on into Germany. Germany was weak, disarmed, and (in 1919 - '20) largely communist anyway. The German people had been partially radicalized by the famine conditions the Allies had created.

Fortunately, that particular Soviet invasion failed, due to the courage of the Polish Army, and due to the fact the Soviet Union was still in a state of civil war. But a disarmed Germany could not forever escape Soviet occupation. Germany’s only long-term hope was to elect a right wing leader–a militarist–who would match the Soviet military buildup with a strong military of his own. Unfortunately, the political circumstances the Allies created in the afermath of their victory were such that only a radical leader would throw off the unjust Versailles Treaty and seek to return Germany to a position of strength. It’s deeply unfortunate that the particular militarist Germany chose was a rabid anti-Semite and anti-Slav. Had WWI resulted in a tie or an Axis victory, Germany would presumably been able to maintain a strong military presence in the post WWI era without politically radicalizing itself. That combination (a strong German military and no radical anti-Semitism) would have yielded better long-term results than anything one could expect from the Allied victory.

The Battle of Britain….

@Axistiger13:

Another idea: What if they prepared the attack, but did not launch it?

Problem with this Axistiger, is that this would have been bad for morale. You cannot tell someone(the Germans) the are better than someone else(the Russians) then say: we cannot beat them. The Germans did believe they could best the enemy.
Otherwise, I think it is a great idea.

Worsham: I have been thinking on this, but have not been able to get out my maps. ( Have been busy with Gettysburg!).
Problem with withdrawing from the salient, apart from the morale thing again, is that Kharkov looms large. It cannot be easily abandoned after the great campaign to retake it.
I believe there could have been a shortening of the Southern salient as long as it did not compromise Kharkov.
Building up a reserve and not throwing tanks at minefields and anti-tank emplacements, is definitely the way to go. The Germans always cost the Russians dear when able to do this. (Both 42 Kharkov and 43 come to mind.)
And Manstein was the man to do it. Sacking him was such a bad move by Hitler.

We would have cut off all ties with them. The next one would have been a declaration of war.

@Razor:

I think Stalin sabotaged the Republicans cause since he was afraid of disturbing UK, they sure did not want a commy state as neighbour. Imagine UK joining up with Germany against communism in Europe.

I think that over-zealous Comintern agents and an NKVD infiltrated PCE (the communist part of Spain) are what really caused the most damage to the Spanish Republic. The wasting of men and material on useless “prestige” offensives in places like Brunete and Teruel, the lack of initiative shown the Soviet advisors and their communist promoted officers, and the persecution of Republic supporting groups like the CNT, UGT (anarchists) and the POUMS (Spain’s Marxist/trotskiest party) did the most damage.

Also, the other single biggest enemy of the Republic and the country that did the most to help the Nationalists and hurt the Republic was the United Kingdom. Their policy of “non-intervention” and the stupid committee they set up that did absolutely nothing. Even when given proof that both Germany AND Italy were blatantly ignoring their roles in this non-intervention committee, and actively helping Franco with troops and equipment, the UK did nothing. Also Britain keep France from helping the Republic by suggesting that they would not back France against the Germans if they did. It was part of the UK’s stupid policy of appeasement that did the most damage to the Republic and thrust them into the arms of the Soviets, and all the damage that caused.

Without Canada (and the commonwealth),  England would have lost the war.
Simple as that.

@Fishmoto37:

All of the above made important contributions to the war effort. Which one do you think contibuted the most. Do you think that there is one fighter that the U.S. could not have done without?

The voting is now closed and the P51 is the winner by 3 votes. Although there was very little commentary as to why.