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

[liveslowdiefast]

Are you fucking me right? of course the british did a thing in WW2 they stopped hitler from total control in europe, while america was still avioding war,This was for all you non-educated types out there the battle of britan practically the alamo of the skies, where the british held the Huge lufftafer (sorry if i didn't spell that right.) with under a quater of the planes of the nazi, and we were just as much involved in D-day and the liberation of europe as americia, and russia they got the worst of it. put it this way
UK- 382,700 deaths
USA- 416,800 deaths
Russia- 10,700,000 deaths
(military deaths)

 

[William Dickbringer]

the brits did more (in my opinion) than americans (don't hate me) we came in just to finish the war the brits and french did most of the fighting we just came in to help finish it

 

[Cody211282]

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.

I agree with most your point but would like to point out most the things Montgomery planned after D-Day sorta sucked, like Operation Market Garden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Market_Garden
And I believe that the Germans were finally defeated in Africa after Patton showed up and started kicking ass like no ones business. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton (see North African campaign)

You guys did play a huge part in the war( even over in the pacific) but I would say by the end got sidelined a bit because you didn't have as much manpower as we did(By the end I mean after Battle of the Bulge).

 

[Guvnorium]

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.

I agree with most your point but would like to point out most the things Montgomery planned after D-Day sorta sucked, like Operation Market Garden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Market_Garden
And I believe that the Germans were finally defeated in Africa after Patton showed up and started kicking ass like no ones business. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton (see North African campaign)

You guys did play a huge part in the war( even over in the pacific) but I would say by the end got sidelined a bit because you didn't have as much manpower as we did(By the end I mean after Battle of the Bulge).

Market Garden wasn't a total failure. It sucked, but it sort of did somthing.

 

[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.

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.

Woah, woah, woah! I didn't mean to say that the Brits didn't do anything. They did ALOT to help the Allies win the war. Yes I do know that the Brits helped alot and they did contribute greatly to the Allied victory in North Africa. But I would still only put the Brits as 3 most important Allied power. More people died on the Eastern Front than every other front COMBINED! Plus Germany suffered most of their casualities there. So the Russians were VERY important in draining the Germans of manpower. The Russians also single handedly invaded Eastern Europe (with a little help from Hitler). And I have to correct you on your statement that the U.K. was THE world Superpower. Yes Great Britain was a force to be reckoned with on the world stage and was a world empire. But I was no longer your glory days of the 17th-19th century. The U.K. was on their way out as the top world power. During the Spanish-American war America proved that it wasn't some backwater, ex-colony nation. In World War I America proved that it had the right to stand alongside Great Britain and France as a powerful nation in the world. After World War II, America had shown that it was THE world superpower. The industrial might of America was critical in winning the war for the Allies. Not only did they contribute a massive army to fight the Germans, but the supplies sent to the U.K. and the U.S.S.R. were a important reason that they stayed in the fight for so long. And yes you did pay for what we gave you, but the fact that you NEEDED the supplies said alot. And do you really think that the Brits would have done as well as they did without American help? Plus there is that little thing that the Americans did, oh what was it again? Oh that's right: BUILD THE ATOMIC BOMB! So saying that the Brits were the top nation during WWII is incorrect.

Now by now your probably foaming at the mouth and about to bash me as a "Typical, Brain-washed, Glory-Stealing Yankee". But please, hold your accusations. I must stress that I do not mean to marginalize the U.K.'s commitment to Allied victory. You guys stormed the beachs of Normandy, pushed the Germans back in North Africa, held during the Blitz, and supplied valuable men in the fight against the Axis. It could definately be argued that British soldiers were of a higher caliber than American soldiers. British generals could be said to be better than American generals. But then of course Rommel could be said to be a better general than Patton, but Patton still won. I know that the main advantage of America was there ability to outproduce the shit out of everybody else. We won the war because we were able to afford casualites that the Axis would have been unable to bear. I also know that America only really started did anything significant militarally until 1943 at the least and that no battles were ever fought on American soil unlike everyother major Allied power. But you cannpt deny that America's entry into the war tipped the balance in favor of the Allies, heavily. I know that Americans generally don't give the rest of the Allies the credit they deserve, and I do realize that alot of what I've said sounds like American chest-pounding. But I am seriously only pointing out what is there. I believe that it is a shame that the British contribution would be marginalized in such a way that would suggest they did nothing. The British were one of the top three Allied powers beyond a doubt. Without the Americans or Russians though, the best outcome for the U.K. would be a fragile peace between Germany.

Plus you guys did hold the line, unlike the French.

 

[internetzealot1]

Clever way to set up a hate thread against America, OP.

 

[Guvnorium]

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.

Woah, woah, woah! I didn't mean to say that the Brits didn't do anything. They did ALOT to help the Allies win the war. Yes I do know that the Brits helped alot and they did contribute greatly to the Allied victory in North Africa. But I would still only put the Brits as 3 most important Allied power. More people died on the Eastern Front than every other front COMBINED! Plus Germany suffered most of their casualities there. So the Russians were VERY important in draining the Germans of manpower. The Russians also single handedly invaded Eastern Europe (with a little help from Hitler). And I have to correct you on your statement that the U.K. was THE world Superpower. Yes Great Britain was a force to be reckoned with on the world stage and were a world empire. But I was no longer your glory days of the 17th-19th century. The U.K. was on their way out as the top world power. During the Spanish-American war America proved that it wasn't some backwater, ex-colony nation. In World War I America proved that it had the right to stand alongside Great Britain and France as a powerful nation in the world. After World War II, America had shown that it was THE world superpower. The industrial might of America was critical in winning the war for the Allies. Not only did they contribute a massive army to fight the Germans, but the supplies sent to the U.K. and the U.S.S.R. were a important reason that they stayed in the fight for so long. And yes you did pay for what we gave you, but the fact that you NEEDED the supplies said alot. And do you really think that the Brits would have done as well as they did without American help? Plus there is that little thing that the Americans did, oh what was it again? Oh that's right: BUILD THE ATOMIC BOMB! So saying that the Brits were the top nation during WWII is incorrect.

Now by now your probably foaming at the mouth and about to bash me as a "Typical, Brain-washed, Glory-Stealing Yankee". But please, hold your accusations. I must stress that I do not mean to marginalize the U.K.'s commitment to Allied victory. You guys stormed the beachs of Normandy, pushed the Germans back in North Africa, held during the Blitz, and supplied valuable men in the fight against the Axis. It could definately be argued that British soldiers were of a higher caliber than American soldiers. British generals could be said to be better than American generals. But then of course Rommel could be said to be a better general than Patton, but Patton still won. I know that the main advantage of America was there ability to outproduce the shit out of everybody else. We won the war because we were able to afford casualites that the Axis would have been unable to bear. I also know that America only really started did anything significant militarally until 1943 at the least and that no battles were ever fought on American soil unlike everyother major Allied power. But you cannpt deny that America's entry into the war tipped the balance in favor of the Allies, heavily. I know that Americans generally don't give the rest of the Allies the credit they deserve, and I do realize that alot of what I've said sounds like American chest-pounding. But I am seriously only pointing out what is there. I believe that it is a shame that the British contribution would be marginalized in such a way that would suggest they did nothing. The British were one of the top three Allied powers beyond a doubt. Without the Americans or Russians though, the best outcome for the U.K. would be a fragile peace between Germany.

Plus you guys did hold the line, unlike the French.

To be fair, the Atomic bomb was built in America, but many of the scientists who worked on it weren't American. The only American I can think of off the top of my head is Openheimer.

 

[Cody211282]

Market Garden wasn't a total failure. It sucked, but it sort of did somthing.

The reason it sucked is because Montgomery didn't like the idea of collateral damage(so no bombings or anything to soften them up or blowing up a house because you think a tank might be behind it), and well the Germans didn't care, also the intel was way off on what we would be expecting there.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

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)

It's mostly a myth about British commanders trying to kill off Aussie troops.

Most of the really fucked up situations the Aussie officers volunteered for to prove themselves to the British. The other situations where the British commanders actually did fuck up massively they managed to fuck over just as many of their own troops if not more.

 

[maninahat]

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?

Whilst you are mostly correct, I'd like to press the importance of Britain's weakened position at the start of the War. Britain was not a real superpower anymore. PM Chamberlain has been criticised for his complacency and appeasment policies, however the logic behind them was reasonable; Britain knew they might have to eventually fight either the Germans or the Japanese, but Britain also knew it couldn't fight a war against both at once. Britain would have to focus all its effort on a single theatre in the event of a war. Thus, if Britain were to start a war with Germany, Japan could easily take advantage of Britain's commitment to one theatre, and assault East Asia, unopposed.

Chamberlain did not use appeasement because he was cowardly or stupid; he realised that if he could get one potential opponent on his side, Britain would not have to fight two enemies in an upcoming conflict. There is some debate as to whether Britain could have prevented a war with germany by appeasement alone - history shows that all appeasement did in the end was allow Hitler to smash through Central Europe largely unopposed.

Chamberlain did however take steps to prepare for war, such as massively boosting spending in regards to the airforce. He also wanted to try and discourage Japanese action with the help of the Americans. he proposed sending a fleet to watch over the Pacific, half of the number being British, the other half being American. America turned down the idea as it didn't offer them any particular advantage.

Britain's inability to fight on two fronts became patently clear in the beginning of the war. Whilst British colonial forces put up a brave fight, they were flattened by the Japanese both on land and sea. Meanwhile, Britain routed from France at Dunkirk in the face of the huge, professional German army.

Another thing people mention is Operation Sea Lion. Whilst Britain's forces were weaker stretched out across the globe defending the colonies, Sea Lion is believed to have probably failed. Even if the RAF failed to stop the Luftwaffe, The german invasion forces would have only been able to penetrate about 10-20 miles inland before losing momentum against the hastily-built, mass amounts of defences built after Dunkirk. The Royal Navy would also quickly cut off German reinforcements by sea, even despite the air superiority of the Nazis.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

snip city, population you

I agree with pretty much everything you just said Russia wins for most important nation of WW2 though. I still think we did more than the Americans in europe though

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)

It's mostly a myth about British commanders trying to kill off Aussie troops.

Most of the really fucked up situations the Aussie officers volunteered for to prove themselves to the British. The other situations where the British commanders actually did fuck up massively they managed to fuck over just as many of their own troops if not more.

Oh i don't know, Gallipoli in WW1 was something of a major cock up that got loads of you guys killed. Maybe not intentionally, but still XD

I agree with most your point but would like to point out most the things Montgomery planned after D-Day sorta sucked, like Operation Market Garden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Market_Garden
And I believe that the Germans were finally defeated in Africa after Patton showed up and started kicking ass like no ones business. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton (see North African campaign)

You guys did play a huge part in the war( even over in the pacific) but I would say by the end got sidelined a bit because you didn't have as much manpower as we did(By the end I mean after Battle of the Bulge).

Market Garden was an excellent plan, but there are a number of reasons beyond Monty's control that could be said to be responsible for its failure such as the move of Bittricht's SS panzer division at arnhem, the american hold up at nijmegan and son bridges and of course, the infamous single road. Allied command also declared market garden 90% successful.
And Patton wasn't that great either. After all, he was left in charge of the dummy army during overlord. And by the time he showed up in north africa as part of Operation Torch the germans were on the back foot and in full retreat. We made sure we took Tunis so we could keep the glory for ourselves. We kind of figured the Americans would take most of the credit from that point onwards. And yeah, after the battle of the bulge we did take something of a backseat but in our defence we had been fighting for five years and needed to start rebuilding our country.

 

[Eggsnham]

I've never heard that before. The British did a tremendous amount of work against Hitler's legions.. It's quite amazing actually.

 

[Sporky111]

... the americans oh the bloody americans held up everything defending the land.

There's your problem right there. This teacher is, at best, prejudiced and at worst, completely oblivious to the truth.

I like to think that WW2 was a co-operative effort among the Allied Nations. However, if my knowledge is being remembered correctly, America didn't even get involved in the war until very late on when it was brought to them (Pearl Harbor). Yes, they stopped Japan, one of the strongest opponents at that point, but they didn't "win the war" all on their own. Far from it.

What America did, was whip out the check book when the war was over to help out the war damaged countries in Europe.

 

[Burningsok]

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.

Yeah compared to how much the other countries did in the war, we didn't do that much, but at least we helped make the finally pushes towards victory. We let Russia take over Berlin I think while we went off to kick Japan's ass lol but yeah the only reason we got into the war was because of Pearl Harbor. We tried to stay neutral.

 

[Frankster]

snip

Plus you guys did hold the line, unlike the French.

I wasnt aware the brits had a land border with germany to hold.
And the french rout was due to more then simply being unable to "hold the line", but nvm lets continue the french bashing rofl lulz and other such terms.

 

[DefunctTheory]

And Patton wasn't that great either. After all, he was left in charge of the dummy army during overlord. And by the time he showed up in north africa as part of Operation Torch the germans were on the back foot and in full retreat. We made sure we took Tunis so we could keep the glory for ourselves. We kind of figured the Americans would take most of the credit from that point onwards. And yeah, after the battle of the bulge we did take something of a backseat but in our defence we had been fighting for five years and needed to start rebuilding our country.

That had more to do with him being a somewhat... unpleasant man. Who did embarassing things. Like hitting soldiers and (correctly) predicting a long standing conflict with the Soviet Union.

And besides, that plan worked like magic!

 

[Sacman]

Because those damn dirty Americans wrote the history books...

 

[mcgroobber]

russians did the biggest job in europe
americans did a hell of a lot (you have to remember they were fighting the 2 biggest wars in recent history, and they were fighting both at the same time pacific and european theatres)
british were plain badass
French resistence was a decisive factor
italian resistence people always forget about
canadians people always forget about
indians fighting for the british people always forget about

 

[Burck]

Because the British didn't fight in many of the same places that the U.S. did, and in general,
the U.S. perspective is the most publicized, at least in the U.S. So people assume the British did little to nothing.