World War II

America did a lot in Europe to. Also, I think the Australians did more than the French unless you are counting the French resistance

I was counting the French Resistance cause they did pretty good.

But there army was a heap of shit just like France always is.The Americans only joined the war because the Axis declared war on them the Russians were commanded poorly they had way more men but didnt use them to there full ability the british held together quite well but the best pilots in the Raf were polish or other foreigners

France's army wasn't shit, they had the best tanks as well. Problem is their tactics still had Trench warfare mentality, the Germans developed well their tactics, coming up with the super-effective Blitzkrieg.

The resistance did have some usefulness, but in terms of military achievements we did way more.

the Australian army in Kokoda was ill-equipped and poorly trained when the Japanese attacked, we beat back the most experienced and well-trained soldiers in the Japanese military, only one soldier still survives, that is one hell of a bragging right.

in Tobruk, the Australian desert rats division beat back Rommel and then proceeded to defeat the AfrikaCorps again in the counter-offensive.

I don't tend to dwell on them being Australian. I don't like to dwell on them being British, either. It was a combined effort by the Commonwealth, so I tend to refer to them as such, so I just group in the Kiwis, Canadians, British, Aussies, etc into that.

As for the Japanese, I can't make my mind up regarding them. They had pretty downright stupid tactics but they got the job done. I quite like their huge ass motherfucking battleships, too.

pretty stupid soldiers too, if they can't stop a mass of bloodthirsty Australian troops charging like rabid wolves.

I wouldn't say their soldiers were on the bad side. In fact, they were hailed as incredibly courageous troops by everybody, including their enemies. They just had pisspoor leadership.

I would separate the Commonwealth forces though.

While under British High Command and in fact received orders from them, I'd consider the Canadians quite independent from them just because of the sheer volume of them.
Canada had it's own beach during the D-day landings, fought several Operations on their own, ...

Same goes for the ANZAC forces, although probably slightly less. Most of the Armoured forces their were probably British, because that's what ANZAC high command expected.
Tanks are high maintenance and ANZAC high command was quite content in just having to supply x amount of infantry, artillery, planes and ships for attacks rather then maintain tanks on island x, y, z, ... with only a slight advantage.

Yeah the world wars are probably the only time the Canadians fought

Meh I consider the War of 1812 a British affair

Actually, the Chinese did. Since they been at war with Japan for 4 or 5 years, when America entered the war. They did a good job keeping about 3 million Japanese troops from reaching the Pacific.

I will agree to that, but they did suffer the most casualties. To be frankly honest though, i think the Soviet's did the most work in the whole course of the war. I will give it to the Americans they did a lot of work in the war too.

The Nationalist Chinese didn't do shit for the Pacific war

Yes, they did by keeping the Japanese fighting in China.

What I meant is that they hardly launched offensive ops and during the Ichi-go offensive, they pretty much melted away. They wanted the Allies to win the war for them.

I find that insulting.

It always is