In which World War 2 army you should have fought?

Thursday, August 31, 2006
You scored as British and the Commonwealth. Your army is the British and the Commonwealth (Canada, ANZAC, India). You want to serve under good generals and use good equipment in defense of the western form of life.

United States


British and the Commonwealth






France, Free French and the Resistance




Soviet Union






In which World War 2 army you should have fought?
created with

I like it. I scored better than some folks, who shall remain unnamed, who scored significant percentages for the USSR, Italy, Germany, and Japan.

h/t : Normblog


Luther McLeod said...

British and the Commonwealth. 88%.

I am too embarrassed to show the rest.

truepeers said...

You scored as Poland.
Your army is Poland's army. Your tenacity will form a concept in the history of your nation and you're also ready to continue fighting even if your country is occupied by the enemy. Other nations that are included in this category are Greece, Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands.

Finland 75%
Poland 75%
British and the Commonwealth69%
France, Free French and the Resistance63%
United States63%
Soviet Union44%

terrye said...


Same here. Who knew I was a bloody Brit?

Knucklehead said...

Well, this is a surprise to me:

Your army is the army of Finland. You prefer to win your enemy by your wit rather than superior weapons. Enemy will have a hard time against your small but effective force.

But I doubt the outcome is a good representation since to my way of thinking statements such as Smaller army is more efficient than a huge horde are pretty lame when it comes to WWII. The Wehrmacht was a large and efficient army. Poland was a small and inefficient army. France had a large and inefficient army. Russia had a large and inefficient army.

What mattered most was effectiveness. Efficiency was a luxury some nations, such as Poland and Russia, did not have and/or could not afford. Efficiency was a necessity for Finland but it was only possible for them due to the extreme conditions.

So I wind up registering strong agreement while having very strong reservations. If you have a small army you must be efficient to have any hope of effectiveness. But efficiency is no guarantee of effectiveness against even an inefficient army if they can produce and sustain horribly inefficient hordes.

The Wehrmacht that wound up gutshot at Stalingrad and subsequently died a slow and painful death was infinitely more efficient than the Red Army that put the bullet in it's belly. It was not, ultimately, more effective.

The RAF that won the Battle of Britain was both more efficient and more effective than the Luftwaffe that lost the battle.

loner said...

You scored as France, Free French and the Resistance.

Your army is the French army. You are prefer to win your enemies by politics than by sheer action, but when the war has started you will fight to the end with those resources you have and belive in freedom and victory in the end.

France, Free French and the Resistance 81%
Poland 69%
United States 56%
British and the Commonwealth 50%
Soviet Union 44%
Italy 44%
Finland 44%
Germany 38%
Japan 31%

The resistance is moi!

Knucklehead said...


A good French Freedom Fighter. Resisting to the end with what you have. A leetle wine, a leetle cheese, a leetle bread. It ees zee slow but sure way to victory (provided those savage capitalist Yankees get here in time!)

Skookumchuk said...

I'm a Pole!

Mmm, pierogi good.

KG said...

I'll settle for that, with pleasure.

terrye said...

I didn;t know Finland had an army.

Rick Ballard said...


XIV Legion, II Cohort - 85%

Numidian Auxiliary Cavalry - 15%

That would be the North African campaign.

Knucklehead said...


The Finns gave the Germans fits in WWII. They gave the Red Army fits also but the hordes were too large. Matter of fact, Finns will give anyone fits.