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

[Guvnorium]

Because most people are american and they're all self righteous douches who think their only good wartime moment in history is a blank cheque to war with any other country in the world without anyone complaining. If you can't guess from my searing hot sarcasm, nobody likes america.

Right. Most people are American. And you are misusing sarcasm

I don't know what American textbooks you all have been reading, but I suspect that they were American history books. You know, the class were one learns about the (short, some who are not me would say insignificant) history of America. Which is one class. However, we have a second required class (GASP!) were we learn about world history. Which we New York State types take before the American one. And we certainly learn all about the contributions of the other countries to World War Two. You know, most of us Americans learned about the fact that countries other than us were involved in World War Two before we read this thread.

EDIT: Guy above beat me to it...

 

[Mucinex-D]

American Patriotism. they just see WW2 in the years 1943-5. Then again a small minority.

If you had read his post he says he lives in Iceland not America. Our history books tell a lot about the British contributions in WW2, and the fact that if not for them Europe would probably be Germany right now. But I suppose the "stupid patriotic American" stereotype is the only view most people outside of our country have. It's a shame that so many people are ignorant to the ways of the world. (See what I did there? I turned the ignorant American stereotype into an ignorant European saying Americans are ignorant stereotype. Tomorrows lesson: The lit- AMERICAAAA FUCK YEAHHH!!!).

Not singling out the person I quoted. Anyone saying "just stupid American patriotism" are just as ignorant as they like to think we are.

 

[gamepopper101]

They really think UK did nothing in World War II? I thought France was the country that did the least, or maybe China since that country was never mentioned in any History lesson I ever did, and I even knew parts of Canada's involvement.

 

[major28]

the english didnt rlly do much offensivle but they were rlly the only country that held of hitler but the americas and russia were heavy on attcking

 

[Guvnorium]

They really think UK did nothing in World War II? I thought France was the country that did the least, or maybe China since that country was never mentioned in any History lesson I ever did, and I even knew parts of Canada's involvement.

Say that to someone from China. They will love you for it...

Not to mention that what the Japenese did to the Chinese was pretty much as mad as what Hitler did to the various minority groups he disliked.

 

[Ph33nix]

snip.

One battle a war does not make, usually, El Alamein was a victory it by itself did not secure a victiory. The british forces in north africa were running out of fuel, ammo, tanks, guns, and all the other supplies you need to fight a war.

I never said that the U.S. played an important role in the battle of britian i just stated that with out the United States Hitler would have eventually attempted operation sealion.
each
Omaha beach was isolated compared to sword, gold, and juno who essentially were all connected allowing for a fluid and shifting deployment of men meaning strong points could be flanked.
Sword had only 8 german army infantry companies and a few thousand infantry from a panzer division and 127 tanks. almost all of which fell back initially.
Juno only had 7,771 men at it only a third of the invasion force
Gold did not even have 2 full infantry companies
Omaha had more German defenders than gold and juno combined

Also if japan had been allowed to take China and the pacific islands they would have started a second front against Russia and done some serious damage. Russia might have been able to fight back on two fronts but i doubt it.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

spewing bullocks from his mouth

That's quite a trick considering how big a cow is.

 

[Frankster]

They really think UK did nothing in World War II? I thought France was the country that did the least, or maybe China since that country was never mentioned in any History lesson I ever did, and I even knew parts of Canada's involvement.

China was rather busy fighting the japanese.

And are you really willing to swear upon the veracity of the following statement?: "during ww2, of all the countries that were ever on the allied side, France undoubtly had the smallest contribution and was the least active of all".

 

[Baconator96]

So, aside from being half of the Normandy landing, single handedly fighting off the Luftwaffe for months, and participating in almost every major battle, hes right. Not a damn thing.

 

[Frankster]

the english didnt rlly do much offensivle but they were rlly the only country that held of hitler but the americas and russia were heavy on attcking

Decades of military historians and ww2 enthusiasts bow their head in shame to your superior knowledge and interpretation of such complex events.

I'd actually say it was russians the most defensive of those 3, they only entered the war when germany attacked them, and their driving back of the germans were a result of their successful defense of the motherland rather then a grand offensive which met the germans head on.

 

[shemoanscazrex3]

Show her Call of Duty 3.

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.

Did your teacher learn about WWII watching war films made by Hollywood?

American was pretty happy not to do anything until near the end, even then the Russains did more for the Allies than anyone, I think half the losses (troops, either MIA or KIA) in WWII were Russain!

Holy shit. Props to you my man. I went to a British school and they didnt even mention Russians in WW2 history, my dad knowing a lot on the subject (his father was also a heavy artillerist in the army) went to complain and the British teacher had nothing to say. He said there was nothing about it in the history books and that it was not true. 6 million Jews died in WW2 and even though that was a tragedy, 12 million Slavic people died and no one even knows that they were in the war. I am studying in a British Uni in UK now and one of my room-mates (who is British) asked me if the Russians fought on the same side as the Germans. So many people of my country died and my Grandfather lost a leg just so people could ignorantly forget about it 60 years later?!

And as for Americans they didn't even join WW2 until the very end. So respect to you and sms_117b for knowing your facts.

No one ever talks about the Russian losses. Hitler and his whole scheme takes the show

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

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.

I think its quite easy to find the heavily biased books in the younger years of the American education system. It was these to which i was referring in my post. The proper academic books, the kind you would use in university or whatever, do a good job of presenting a balanced view on who did what.

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.

Now, to deal with you
We did just as much, if not more than the Americans in WW2, at least in Europe. I will happily give you Asia. Britain was on a greater footing as a world super power during WW2. We were THE world superpower. You remember that little thing called the british empire?
We didn't just hold the line, we pushed the germans and the italians out of north africa, and we were there, right alongside the americans in every operation afterwards. To say we didn't do as much or that America and Russia were the biggest allied powers is to a large extent misinformed. Montgomery was also the one responsible for planning Over lord, Market Garden and he played an important role in planning the Invasion of Sicily. We Destroyed the deep water docks at St Nazaire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Nazaire_Raid
Commando raids all throughout Europe destroyed key pieces of german infrastructure. And lets not forget such things as the raid on the heavy water plant at telemark. Norwegian resistance groups prevented the germans from developing nuclear weapons before the allies.
i could give you countless other examples of famous raids undertaken by british forces that directly affected the outcome of the war. Like, the airbourne destruction of the Itlian fleet at Taranto. The list goes on and on. I think its fair to say we did more than the Americans in Europe and North Africa.
And we paid for everything the Americans gave us.

 

[Frankster]

So, aside from being half of the Normandy landing, single handedly fighting off the Luftwaffe for months, and participating in almost every major battle, hes right. Not a damn thing.

Ooh actually I can think of another important role uk had that hasnt been mentioned yet:
acting as refuge for conquered countries and a rallying point.

I know for a fact french involvement in ww2 after france fell was only possible because the brits allowed De Gaulle and the new french goverment to set up an hq of sorts in London.
English enabled soldiers from other countries, such as poland and netherlands, to continue fighting in this manner. These might look like tiny contributions, but I'm sure small bands of highly motivated men fighting to liberate their country played their parts back then.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

I've never once heard that. I've heard that the British were holding the Western portion of the German forces while Russia took the brunt of the fighting in the East, while America is off in the Pacific playing Island-Hop (it's a fun game, involving Islands, Japanese, forests, carpet bombs, napalm, and strange decisions). Without the British, and later the French, holding off the Western forces, Russia would have been driven out of the war, which would have turned more attention to Britain and the US. That Britain and Russia held them up means they saved the US from most of the European conflict, and that it wasn't until later that we could dedicate a strong enough force to supply the necessary number of targets for the Germans so that we could strike together, as a unified threat. We rather owe you in that regard.

 

[Guvnorium]

So, aside from being half of the Normandy landing, single handedly fighting off the Luftwaffe for months, and participating in almost every major battle, hes right. Not a damn thing.

Ooh actually I can think of another important role uk had that hasnt been mentioned yet:
acting as refuge for conquered countries and a rallying point.

I know for a fact french involvement in ww2 after france fell was only possible because the brits allowed De Gaulle and the new french goverment to set up an hq of sorts in London.
English enabled soldiers from other countries, such as poland and netherlands, to continue fighting in this manner. These might look like tiny contributions, but I'm sure small bands of highly motivated men fighting to liberate their country played their parts back then.

Itwas mentioned before but I don't feel like digging through eleven pages to find it. And I don't think you did either

 

[Patinator]

My question is, did South America do anything during the war! I mean, even our friendly neighbors to the north Canada contributed to WWII. But i have never heard of anything from South America Has anyone?

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I think its quite easy to find the heavily biased books in the younger years of the American education system. It was these to which i was referring in my post. The proper academic books, the kind you would use in university or whatever, do a good job of presenting a balanced view on who did what.

It's not just the US, though. A lot of Aussie military history texts could easily be given the subheadings Why the British Suck or Australia (and New Zealand) Save The World Despite Our Own Allies Being Determined to Kill Us All.

 

[Frankster]

snippy

snip

It was? Then curse my fast reading, did browse through but no such thing registered on my mind. Kudos to whoever remembered that the allied side had LOTS of countries and ultimate victory was only possible thanks to all the actors involved instead of just some of them.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

snip.

One battle a war does not make, usually, El Alamein was a victory it by itself did not secure a victiory. The british forces in north africa were running out of fuel, ammo, tanks, guns, and all the other supplies you need to fight a war.

I never said that the U.S. played an important role in the battle of britian i just stated that with out the United States Hitler would have eventually attempted operation sealion.
each
Omaha beach was isolated compared to sword, gold, and juno who essentially were all connected allowing for a fluid and shifting deployment of men meaning strong points could be flanked.
Sword had only 8 german army infantry companies and a few thousand infantry from a panzer division and 127 tanks. almost all of which fell back initially.
Juno only had 7,771 men at it only a third of the invasion force
Gold did not even have 2 full infantry companies
Omaha had more German defenders than gold and juno combined

Also if japan had been allowed to take China and the pacific islands they would have started a second front against Russia and done some serious damage. Russia might have been able to fight back on two fronts but i doubt it.

Read my post on the page 11. It has a slightly more comprehensive list on what we did during the war.
Hitler was far too busy with Russia to even think about Operation Sealion. Couple that with the fact that he failed to gain air superiority in the battle of britain and it shows that an attempt to invade England would have been sheer folly.
As to Omaha beach, yes it was the best defended, but it that doesn't change the fact that it took you the longest to get off the beach. General Bradley was even thinking of pulling out altogether.
Firstly I'm willing to give you the war in the pacific, i just think this was where Americas greatest contribution to the war was.
As to China, Japan had been fighting China since 1936. Eight years later, when America entered the war, the japs hadn't advanced all that far. They were nowhere near in a position to attack China. I should also point out that i have seen no evidence of any Japanese plans to open up a second front against russia. The British and commonwealth forces did a pretty damn good job in tying up japanese forces. Lets not forget things such as the chindit raids on japanese strong points and fuel dumps, bridges and ammo depots etc.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

It's not just the US, though. A lot of Aussie military history texts could easily be given the subheadings Why the British Suck or Australia (and New Zealand) Save The World Despite Our Own Allies Being Determined to Kill Us All.

Well, the british commanders did seem fairly determined to kill you guys off XD But hey, you guys stood firm against the japs (bombing of port darwin, specialist jungle warfare and stuff)