Why do people say that the British didn't do a thing in WW2?

[Double A]

The people who say Britain did nothing are the same ones saying France is full of pussies and surrendered when Adolf Hitler sneezed and they thought it was the Blitzkrieg.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

Well Churchill kinda sold poland to the USSR, but thats because Stalin was a greedy evil bastard and he was too afraid to oppose him (I dont blame him for that). But they did fight quite a lot hands in hands with us (I am polish), especially in the RAF.

Americans say they did this and they did that, but they only joined after THEIR arses became endangered and did not even moved a finger when millions of Jews died in the Aushwitz concentration camp (extermination camp tbh, and I went there - its grim dead silence and just so terrifying).

Also, monte casino, the battle of monte casino. British and polish fighting back to back and hand to hand agaisnt the germans stationed on top of the hill in a castle I believe. one of the generals said that the polish fought with so much devotion, and zealotry.

So dont worry my british companion, yor teacher is just prejudiced and a dumbwit!

Well, Churchill didn't sell Poland to the USSR. Germany and the USSR divided POland between them as agreed in the Russo Soviet pact. It was really more of a case of the USSR selling out poland. They did the same thing in 44/45 when they let the Polish Home Army get massacred in Warsaw.
The Americans didn't actually know about the death camps until 45 when they encountered them in europe.
As to Monte Casino, there were people from every single allied nation fighting there. True, the americans did the worst and made it the least distance up the hill, but it was the Ghurkas and the New Zealanders who made it the farthest up until the majority of the allied armies bypassed it and left it for the brits and poles to take. Allied casualties numbered roughly 105,000 and Germna casualties were something like 80,000 from Casino. The Ghurkas, New Zealanders and Poles were truly a force to be reckoned with in that battle. Of course, the troops in Italy considered themselves to be something of a 'forgotten army' as historian Karen Farrington puts it. They succeeding in taking Rome on 4 june. An achievement that was left unrecognised in the wake of D-Day. Somehow i've gone really off topic here haven't I xD

Turning points......Ok You have set me off 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...

Any chance i can persuade you to give us that theory, it sounds really rather interesting.

 

[freakonaleash]

Simple question in fact I was in history today learning about WW2 and my teacher said that the british didn't do a thing and that the americans oh the bloody americans held up everything defending the land.
For when I read the book then it was mostly in Russia and the russians did most of the killing and the biggest sacrifices.
So guys I'm thinking what did the british do?

P.s.I'm a british patriot (16) who lives in Iceland so the education here for history isn't exactly great.

You must be singlehandedly the most retarde fuck on earth! SEriously, how many people actually believe this, and give me a break, you're in ICELAND, not AMERICA, so quit with the anti-american shit folks, it gets old...

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

Simple question in fact I was in history today learning about WW2 and my teacher said that the british didn't do a thing and that the americans oh the bloody americans held up everything defending the land.
For when I read the book then it was mostly in Russia and the russians did most of the killing and the biggest sacrifices.
So guys I'm thinking what did the british do?

P.s.I'm a british patriot (16) who lives in Iceland so the education here for history isn't exactly great.

You must be singlehandedly the most retarde fuck on earth! SEriously, how many people actually believe this, and give me a break, you're in ICELAND, not AMERICA, so quit with the anti-american shit folks, it gets old...

Methinks you need to calm down a little. If his teacher learned what he knows from American textbooks (i've seen what some of them say about ww2 and the rest of the allies barely get a mention) then it doesn't matter that he is in Iceland, but that his teacher has this obviously wrong opinion.
And when American history textbooks belittle the rest of the allies contributions to one of the most pivotal periods in history the anti-americanism is to some extent justified.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

Snip

Touche (Eww, a French word).

Correct me if im wrong but British Tank Crews were much more trained than their American counterparts due to experience and without helping each other, things would have been very different in the North-Africa campaign which is apparently one of the turning points of the war.

At the beginning they were. It didn't help that American tanks were built for ease of manufactoring, not performance. By the end of the war though, American tankers had gotten really creative and were overcoming the faults in their tanks.

This period is something of my speciality XD I wrote a five thousand word essay on Market Garden just for fun. I gave it to my history teacher and he was pretty damn impressed

The Americans didn't get as creative with their tanks as we did though. Have you heard of the 'funnies'? E.g the Crocodile tank, the anti flail tank etc and of course, how can one forget the panjandrum XD

 

[Claymorez]

Turning points......Ok You have set me off 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...

Any chance i can persuade you to give us that theory, it sounds really rather interesting.

Germany's extensive train network meant redeployment was easy. However it also meant the German high command was able to put into action operation barbarousa far too quickly and was able to redeploy most of their forces faster, to the Eastern front, than was predicted logistically fess-able by most of the best strategists of the time. The theory I have goes on to talk about how this meant the German high command grew conceited and was over eager to redeploy occupation forces in France. I will post full theory some other time.

 

[NEVRINx54]

the Brits where out gunned and out manned...

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

America has the luxury of numbers, if America was the size of Britain, then they would have been butchered if they used the same tactics of throwing troops at a the enemy.

just for fun lets replay WW2, but this time America IS the size of Britan and they where deployed at the start of the war, using that tactic:

German Force ocupy most of Europe: America Throws all it has at them for the big push (strait away)
BAM! half of there force gone, choose your path wisely America this could mean you lose the only war you accually won...

 

[Shock and Awe]

Then your teacher deserves a lesson her/himself. No one can deny the Brits were vital in World War 2.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

Turning points......Ok You have set me off 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...

Any chance i can persuade you to give us that theory, it sounds really rather interesting.

Germany's extensive train network meant redeployment was easy. However it also meant the German high command was able to put into action operation barbarousa far too quickly and was able to redeploy most of their forces faster, to the Eastern front, than was predicted logistically fess-able by most of the best strategists of the time. The theory I have goes on to talk about how this meant the German high command grew conceited and was over eager to redeploy occupation forces in France. I will post full theory some other time.

Thats rather good. I must say i quite like this. I look forward to the full theory.
I think it fits in quite nicely with idea of Hitler's impatience in attacking Russia

 

[The Stonker]

Simple question in fact I was in history today learning about WW2 and my teacher said that the british didn't do a thing and that the americans oh the bloody americans held up everything defending the land.
For when I read the book then it was mostly in Russia and the russians did most of the killing and the biggest sacrifices.
So guys I'm thinking what did the british do?

P.s.I'm a british patriot (16) who lives in Iceland so the education here for history isn't exactly great.

You must be singlehandedly the most retarde fuck on earth! SEriously, how many people actually believe this, and give me a break, you're in ICELAND, not AMERICA, so quit with the anti-american shit folks, it gets old...

I beg your pardon? I was not being anti-american at all.
I was asking what the British contributed from the war because the resources I was getting them from was obviously spewing bullocks from his mouth.
Now Americans fought the japanese but so did the australians and english of course New zealand or how ever it's written as well.
It was just that my teacher well likes America more then England because of Icesave and all of that bullocks.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

The Brits didn't do that much compared to the Americans or the Russians, but then of course those two were the BIG Allied powers. The British were probably the third most powerful Allied forces and they did contribute a good amount to the war effort. Had the British Isles fell to the Nazis it would have been alot harder to win for the Allies. Although they mainly did a lot of "holding the line", they none-the-less did allow for an easier victory for the Allies in general. I don't quite know how much they contributed to the Asian front in terms of offensive might, but I do know they managed to hold the Japanese in Indochina so they did help. And they also contributed to several of the major Allied invasions of mainland Europe (Normandy, Sicily, Italy proper). In the end you can't really say that they did as much as America or the Soviet Union, but they did still contribute alot to the Allied war effort, as opposed to SOMEBODY on the continent. You know, the Swiss. They didn't help at all.
The war was won with American money, British cities, and Russian blood.

 

[llew]

No, we didn't do anything apart from pretty much holding back everyone in North Africa, being the only nation in Europe who remained standing and fighting while the Americans remained isolationist and we had to withstand the might of the Nazi war machine alone, cracking the ENIGMA code, contributing heavily to D-Day, Overlord, and in fact every operation apart from the Americans offensive on Japan.

Nope, Britain was useless in World War II

well the sending of ammo and weapons wasnt really a secret considering the ships carrying the equipment got attacked on a regular basis even before they joined and they only did it because they got a fair amount of profit out of it (seeing as only the president seemed to believe that the nazis needed to be stopped before they joined :/)
To be fair, the British only had to deal with the Luftwaffe- had the Third Reich actually invaded Britain like they had the rest of mainland Europe, I think you guys would have been in some serious trouble. You probably also wouldn't have done too well if the Americans hadn't been sending you weapons, ammo and equipment secretly.

But to say the British were a 'non-factor' in World War II is just silly. Field Marshal Montgomery pushed Rommel and the Wermacht out of North Africa almost single-handedly. They were also major factors in Operation Overlord, battling up through Sicily and Italy, the (failed) invasion of Holland and, as someone said, cracking the ENIGMA code.

 

[llew]

Simple question in fact I was in history today learning about WW2 and my teacher said that the british didn't do a thing and that the americans oh the bloody americans held up everything defending the land.
For when I read the book then it was mostly in Russia and the russians did most of the killing and the biggest sacrifices.
So guys I'm thinking what did the british do?

P.s.I'm a british patriot (16) who lives in Iceland so the education here for history isn't exactly great.

You must be singlehandedly the most retarde fuck on earth! SEriously, how many people actually believe this, and give me a break, you're in ICELAND, not AMERICA, so quit with the anti-american shit folks, it gets old...

Methinks you need to calm down a little. If his teacher learned what he knows from American textbooks (i've seen what some of them say about ww2 and the rest of the allies barely get a mention) then it doesn't matter that he is in Iceland, but that his teacher has this obviously wrong opinion.
And when American history textbooks belittle the rest of the allies contributions to one of the most pivotal periods in history the anti-americanism is to some extent justified.

actually in all fairness i have noticed that in american textbooks. they always say how america did this and america did that and seem to forget everyone else... im not anti-american just think they are overly patriotic (and thats coming from a welsh patriot)

 

[J474]

Simple question in fact I was in history today learning about WW2 and my teacher said that the british didn't do a thing and that the americans oh the bloody americans held up everything defending the land.
For when I read the book then it was mostly in Russia and the russians did most of the killing and the biggest sacrifices.
So guys I'm thinking what did the british do?

P.s.I'm a british patriot (16) who lives in Iceland so the education here for history isn't exactly great.

You must be singlehandedly the most retarde fuck on earth! SEriously, how many people actually believe this, and give me a break, you're in ICELAND, not AMERICA, so quit with the anti-american shit folks, it gets old...

How many people believe in what? The only belief I can see is the belief that the Russians sacrificed the most, which is a rather respectable view

 

[Cody211282]

Simple question in fact I was in history today learning about WW2 and my teacher said that the british didn't do a thing and that the americans oh the bloody americans held up everything defending the land.
For when I read the book then it was mostly in Russia and the russians did most of the killing and the biggest sacrifices.
So guys I'm thinking what did the british do?

P.s.I'm a british patriot (16) who lives in Iceland so the education here for history isn't exactly great.

Tell you teacher to go back to school and learned what really happened.
The Battle of Britain was damn insane, it was basically the Brits doing a last stand against the Luftwaffe (German Air Force). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain
They also had to hold off the Germans in Africa(lead by Rommel)as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_Campaignn
Not to mention they had to take 2 beaches in D-Day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Day

Basically the Brits fought tooth and nail, alone mostly, against the Axis until the Americans showed up. Then proceeded to keep fighting even after taking a pounding.

 

[Cody211282]

Simple question in fact I was in history today learning about WW2 and my teacher said that the british didn't do a thing and that the americans oh the bloody americans held up everything defending the land.
For when I read the book then it was mostly in Russia and the russians did most of the killing and the biggest sacrifices.
So guys I'm thinking what did the british do?

P.s.I'm a british patriot (16) who lives in Iceland so the education here for history isn't exactly great.

You must be singlehandedly the most retarde fuck on earth! SEriously, how many people actually believe this, and give me a break, you're in ICELAND, not AMERICA, so quit with the anti-american shit folks, it gets old...

Methinks you need to calm down a little. If his teacher learned what he knows from American textbooks (i've seen what some of them say about ww2 and the rest of the allies barely get a mention) then it doesn't matter that he is in Iceland, but that his teacher has this obviously wrong opinion.
And when American history textbooks belittle the rest of the allies contributions to one of the most pivotal periods in history the anti-americanism is to some extent justified.

actually in all fairness i have noticed that in american textbooks. they always say how america did this and america did that and seem to forget everyone else... im not anti-american just think they are overly patriotic (and thats coming from a welsh patriot)

I haven't had that problem in textbooks, hell they did a good job outlining and showing who did what, mind you I did a ton of research on my own about the subject but still I have yet to run into a textbook that says the Americans were the only ones doing anything.