Why do people say that the British didn't do a thing in WW2?
- Thread starter The Stonker
- Start date
Recommended Videos
anyone who says that is a retard.
el alamain was the british stopping the germans getting eygptian oil, thus forcing hitler to invade russia in search of oil, splitting his aims and forces.
the battle of britian was the RAF fighting off german air power preventing hitler from taking england, allowing the USA (who did a equal or larger part of the European campaign) to base troops here ready for DDay.
The british fought with australian and indians against the japenese in jungle fighting in south asia.
the british fought in africa against rommel.
the british SOE supplied trained and organised the french resistane (also the greek and norwegian resitence).
british commando raids made hitler... oh the list is bloody endless.
your teacher is a spaz with no idea of military history. arnhem, st. nazaire, D-day, all were british led operations.
however the germans consider WW2 to be a war fought against russia predominantly, they shoudl be credited with largely defeating the germans.
el alamain was the british stopping the germans getting eygptian oil, thus forcing hitler to invade russia in search of oil, splitting his aims and forces.
the battle of britian was the RAF fighting off german air power preventing hitler from taking england, allowing the USA (who did a equal or larger part of the European campaign) to base troops here ready for DDay.
The british fought with australian and indians against the japenese in jungle fighting in south asia.
the british fought in africa against rommel.
the british SOE supplied trained and organised the french resistane (also the greek and norwegian resitence).
british commando raids made hitler... oh the list is bloody endless.
your teacher is a spaz with no idea of military history. arnhem, st. nazaire, D-day, all were british led operations.
however the germans consider WW2 to be a war fought against russia predominantly, they shoudl be credited with largely defeating the germans.
There is a Usergroup to do with this topic of discussion? interesting...Totenkopf said:
Also thanks for the quote from your lesson - tis interesting. Also just wanted to say I do feel that German's today put themselves down too much for the war. Yes terrible things occurred but YOU didn't do them - Germany and the whole world should just learn from this event and never repeat it - YOU shouldn't have to say sorry for what your fore-father's did.
Also, They assisted France when the Nazis invaded. The Americans didn't actually enter the war until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. In fact, the British didn't expect to enter the war until Germany invaded so many places. I'm sure if it wasn't for Britain, The Germans would have invaded the States.Furburt said:
America largely didn't KNOW about the mass murders in the concentration camps - only the highest of the higher-ups knew what was going on when word got out via the polish underground in, IIRC, 1942, and most were skeptical anyway. The public was not aware until much later. I agree that the leaders who knew should have been more vocal about taking action, but you can't just say "America let them kill all those people" without some really heavy qualification.Project_Omega said:
America was held back by the American Neutrality Act, which stemmed from the overwhelming desire of the public to not get involved in foreign wars thanks to WWI. That said, America did plenty to help the allies without direct involvement through trade - it was clear from the beginning which side the US was on, but you have to understand that there were legal hurdles in the way of direct intervention in the war. Even with them in place, though, many US leaders did what they could to help, and as soon as it became a legally viable option, (thanks to pearl harbor) the US jumped in with both feet.
I have little doubt that if the public had been made aware of what was going on in the concentration camps, opinion would have mandated immediate involvement in the war: it's just unfortunate that this isn't how it worked out.
As to the OP - the Brits did plenty in WWII, just holding out as long as they did is an amazing achievement. The US tends to get a disproportionate amount of attention largely because they joined so close to the end, there's a sort of logical progression from "The Americans joined, then we won" to "we won because the Americans joined," even if this is largely inaccurate. If you had to say that any one of the allies played "the biggest" role in the victory, then it is without a doubt the Russians. You can easily count Stalingrad as the real turning point in the war, and they did bear the burden of most of the fighting.
Though, if you want to take a broader view, I would actually say that the turning point was when the Germans invaded Russia in the first place... historically that's just not really a good idea for any campaign, hehe.
Turning points......Ok You have set me offhitheremynameisbob said:
Now I am gonna have to put forth my theory about German Railway efficiency resulting in Germany's defeat... ok I'll restrain myself on that part...For now...However although your points largely hold merit - you cannot use 'law' as an excuse for not joining the war. The fact the majority of American's didn't know about the death camps and they wanted to stay out of European affairs is a good one - as by all rights if they had it would be a form of escalation. However 'law' is dictated by government, and so your points about law restricting them is very flimsy in my opinion - sorry!
Oh,the British did alot,infact,my grandfather dislikes them quite a bit(for unknown reasons) but he always said he admired their efforts and sacrifices made during that war.
What makes me laugh a whole bunch are the people ripping on the Russians for having an inefficient army which relied on zerg rushes to win land battles.
To those people I point out a couple things.First,the complete lack of supplies on the US pacific front.Alot of the US soldiers over there were still armed with rifles made during WWI and when they finally got new planes,they proved to be obselete as soon as they were made.
Then the US ran away from the theatre,leaving it up to the ANZAC to train US soldiers and hold back what they could.From a narrow-minded person's point a view,that's very much like what happened to the French.
To continue my defence of the Russian war effort,the British and American plans to win back some European cities were hilariously bad.Since when do you liberate a city by destroying over 90% of it(See:Brest) or fire-bomb every part of a city knowing damn well there are civilians(seeresden).Or perhaps my favorite of all,which led Winston Churchill to write an angry letter to Roosevelt:US bombers getting spooked by a couple germans fighters and dropping their bombs early on an inhabited city instead of factories,just to be able turn back and say mission accomplished.
I can understand the atom bombs though.The Americans did not want to lose possibly millions of soldiers and invade and kill the civilians would would have been levied to fight to the end.They were going to die,one way or the other.
To British people scoffing at the rest of Europe that THEY didn't surrender.Newsflash:you faced only half of what the germans military was fielding against Europe.Holding out against the full might of the Luftwaffe was a great accomplishement,but you did not have to face legions of panzers,which were from a technological and technical point of view vastly superior to anything anyone had,wrecking your shit.
Lastly,to add to what I read on one of the first pages,the French had to rebuild from WWI.Yes,the germans were hit hard by the Treaty of Versailles,but at least they still had all their factories,while a good quarter of France had been ravaged by 4 years of what is probably the most brutal war ever on it's soil.
Disclaimer:I had no idea where this post was going,so I just kept ranting on things I've seen over the years.This post is not aimed at any particular person.
What makes me laugh a whole bunch are the people ripping on the Russians for having an inefficient army which relied on zerg rushes to win land battles.
To those people I point out a couple things.First,the complete lack of supplies on the US pacific front.Alot of the US soldiers over there were still armed with rifles made during WWI and when they finally got new planes,they proved to be obselete as soon as they were made.
Then the US ran away from the theatre,leaving it up to the ANZAC to train US soldiers and hold back what they could.From a narrow-minded person's point a view,that's very much like what happened to the French.
To continue my defence of the Russian war effort,the British and American plans to win back some European cities were hilariously bad.Since when do you liberate a city by destroying over 90% of it(See:Brest) or fire-bomb every part of a city knowing damn well there are civilians(see
resden).Or perhaps my favorite of all,which led Winston Churchill to write an angry letter to Roosevelt:US bombers getting spooked by a couple germans fighters and dropping their bombs early on an inhabited city instead of factories,just to be able turn back and say mission accomplished.I can understand the atom bombs though.The Americans did not want to lose possibly millions of soldiers and invade and kill the civilians would would have been levied to fight to the end.They were going to die,one way or the other.
To British people scoffing at the rest of Europe that THEY didn't surrender.Newsflash:you faced only half of what the germans military was fielding against Europe.Holding out against the full might of the Luftwaffe was a great accomplishement,but you did not have to face legions of panzers,which were from a technological and technical point of view vastly superior to anything anyone had,wrecking your shit.
Lastly,to add to what I read on one of the first pages,the French had to rebuild from WWI.Yes,the germans were hit hard by the Treaty of Versailles,but at least they still had all their factories,while a good quarter of France had been ravaged by 4 years of what is probably the most brutal war ever on it's soil.
Disclaimer:I had no idea where this post was going,so I just kept ranting on things I've seen over the years.This post is not aimed at any particular person.
Horse-shit the bloody Americans didn't come into the war till pearl harbour while the Brits and Russians (and I guess French and I believe the Canadians were around) I actually come across this alot in my class people believe the Americans were the Heroes but if they had the choice America would have let us burn it wasn't their problem
I am sorry just speaking my mind!
I am sorry just speaking my mind!
Well, as an American, I was only taught about the things we did. Its a real shame. I was much more interested in what other countries did. Their big battles, and stories from the war. Since school, I've done a lot of reading about other countries wartime efforts.
So, by not telling me about the other countries, my teachers led me to believe we were the only ones fighting battles and sacrificing our lives. The other countries were there, but did nothing compared to the USA. Thankfully, I took an interest in WW2 and taught myself otherwise.
So, by not telling me about the other countries, my teachers led me to believe we were the only ones fighting battles and sacrificing our lives. The other countries were there, but did nothing compared to the USA. Thankfully, I took an interest in WW2 and taught myself otherwise.
why do "people" say the British didn't do anything?
No no "people" know damn well the importance of the British and indeed every nation who fought.
Switch "people" with "Americans" and then that's a more accurate question to which the answer is that Americans can't admit that any other country can shape/save the world or probably cos we used to rule you guys and this is the American way of getting back at us.....
No no "people" know damn well the importance of the British and indeed every nation who fought.
Switch "people" with "Americans" and then that's a more accurate question to which the answer is that Americans can't admit that any other country can shape/save the world or probably cos we used to rule you guys and this is the American way of getting back at us.....
You teacher is a retard. The English were pretty much the only thing stopping Hitler in the West for the majority of the war. They also had the only favorable kill/casualty ratio against the germans.
it's Ridiculous, the only reason America think there all big an they did all the work is because they came at the last minute, without the british they'd be fucked end of,
it's easy to beat a monster that's been weakened, and thats all they did,
we did all the work all they did was jump in at the last minute and took the credit
it's easy to beat a monster that's been weakened, and thats all they did,
we did all the work all they did was jump in at the last minute and took the credit
Easily one of the most ignorant things I've ever read. Stereotyping isn't going to get you anywhere. The whole "Americans only care about themselves and think they did everything" shtick doesn't cut it here.ClunkiestTurtle said:
As I stated above, its what we're taught. How many other countries teach the things America did during the war? Each country is going to teach their stories, battles, and the things they did. It's up to you as an individual to research the entire picture.
As an American, I can safely say that we did not do everything. Every country involved played a large part. Without every country sacrificing its resources, and most importantly, its people, the war would have gone a completely different way.
Don't worry about those that think otherwise. Let them wallow in their own ignorance.
[EDIT] I'm not saying we aren't taught about Britains(and other countries) part at all. We just aren't taught a lot.
Well your teacher is obviously an oblivious and nation-centric asshole. I've never heard anyone say they didn't do a thing in the war, they were fighting it years before the Americans showed up. I'm an American, and while I truly respect our soldiers that fought in World War II, we couldn't have won if not for the collective effort of many countries. Britain, as far as I know, is still held in high regard for their efforts against the Nazi's, hopefully. As has been said, the Russian's don't get their credit for what they did, without them the Battle of Berlin would've been much messier and cost far more lives. Yes Stalin just threw men at the problem, but without that sacrifice of defending their homeland the war would've drug on for at least five more years.
Interesting facts, I bought a book with personal journals of Russians and Germans during Operation Barbarossa. Apparently the Russians would time their charges based on the firing of the MG-42s the German's had. They would figure out how many machine guns were in a position, and send out just enough soldiers so that the German's would be out of rounds and would have to reload by the time the last line of soldiers reached the nest. The Russian's also experimented with bomb-dogs. They placed meat under T-34 tanks and let their dogs loose, so they associated tanks with food. On the battlefield they put explosives on the dogs with a trip wire above their heads, so when they ran under a tank looking for food it would detonate and disable the tank. They ran into the problem that a dog can't differentiate between a T-34 and a Panzer tank.
Back to topic, the British, and the OSS and RAF especially contributed immensely to the war effort. As did Canada, Australia, the French and Polish resistance, the Russians and the Partisans (who unfortunately were raped by the Russian government after the war, can't have a paramilitary unit not in the Red Army). Your professor is a dumbass, and he needs to learn some history. The American military force was essential to winning the war in Europe, but without all the other countries involved, it would've taken at least a decade longer, and cost millions of lives.
Interesting facts, I bought a book with personal journals of Russians and Germans during Operation Barbarossa. Apparently the Russians would time their charges based on the firing of the MG-42s the German's had. They would figure out how many machine guns were in a position, and send out just enough soldiers so that the German's would be out of rounds and would have to reload by the time the last line of soldiers reached the nest. The Russian's also experimented with bomb-dogs. They placed meat under T-34 tanks and let their dogs loose, so they associated tanks with food. On the battlefield they put explosives on the dogs with a trip wire above their heads, so when they ran under a tank looking for food it would detonate and disable the tank. They ran into the problem that a dog can't differentiate between a T-34 and a Panzer tank.
Back to topic, the British, and the OSS and RAF especially contributed immensely to the war effort. As did Canada, Australia, the French and Polish resistance, the Russians and the Partisans (who unfortunately were raped by the Russian government after the war, can't have a paramilitary unit not in the Red Army). Your professor is a dumbass, and he needs to learn some history. The American military force was essential to winning the war in Europe, but without all the other countries involved, it would've taken at least a decade longer, and cost millions of lives.
im dont no much about history but when the germans declared war on a neighbouring country the first time, the british didnt help them but signed some treaties with germany that promiced that they wouldnt attack them? im not to sure about this but i think somthing like this happend.
but of course the british played a huge part in the war,
but of course the british played a huge part in the war,