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

[RhombusHatesYou]

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

That was part of the Dardenailles(sp?) Campaign which was a fuck up all over that managed to kill many troops from many countries... however, a lot of the carnage again was due to Australian officers trying to prove themselves. They were the ones who volunteered their units for every stupid mission that they heard of, they were the ones who constantly argued to their commanders that "one more push" against objectives that had spent the past 3 days merrily blowing half their units to hamburger was the right idea.

 

[Cody211282]

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.

Patton was stuck with a dummy army because of bad PR(he slapped a soldier for being a coward and bad mouthed the Russians) hell even the Nazi high command thought he would be the one in charge of the invasion, not to mention when he actually got to fight they started taking much more land then they had before hand. the only thing that slowed him down is they couldn't get him fuel fast enough. Patton was probably the best general in WW2, and the only leader from the war that is nearly as awesome is Churchill.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

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!

That it did. good old fashioned british ingenuity. Of course, the only reason they needed Patton there was to make the germans think it was important XD
Still, neither Monty or Patton were as good as Rommel. Its a shame what happened to Rommel though. He didn't deserve what happened to him.

 

[mcgroobber]

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.

patton was actually one of the best generals in ww11 but eisonhower got so tired of him because he never followed orders (ie sicily invasion) after this, the us wanted germany to believe that they were going to invade on the northern tip of france, not normandy, so they set up a dummy army in the south of england across the channel to make the germans believe that they would attack there, the german command was convinced that their best general (patton in their opinion) would lead the attack, so many german troops were sent to defend areas they thought that patton would attack, and even after d day, the germans were so fearful of pattons invasion that they kept troops in position instead of aiding the counter attack

while this plan was created by eisonhower, for it to work patton would have to have been a decent general, he was batshit insane, but he was a good leader

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I wasnt aware the brits had a land border with germany to hold.

Coastal borders are lines, too.

 

[Guvnorium]

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!

That it did. good old fashioned british ingenuity. Of course, the only reason they needed Patton there was to make the germans think it was important XD
Still, neither Monty or Patton were as good as Rommel. Its a shame what happened to Rommel though. He didn't deserve what happened to him.

Rommel is just plain awesome. And he didn't even like Hitler!

 

[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.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

awesome is Churchill.

After Churchill tried to have Australian troops returning home diverted to India to defend it against the Japanese despite the fact Australia was under just as much if not more threat from Japan, I wouldn't call him "awesome" I'd call him a "fuckwit".

 

[DefunctTheory]

SNIP

Patton was stuck with a dummy army because of bad PR(he slapped a soldier for being a coward and bad mouthed the Russians) hell even the Nazi high command thought he would be the one in charge of the invasion, not to mention when he actually got to fight they started taking much more land then they had before hand. the only thing that slowed him down is they couldn't get him fuel fast enough. Patton was probably the best general in WW2, and the only leader from the war that is nearly as awesome is Churchill.

Patton was certainly the most aggressive General of WWII, but the best? Who knows. his time in combat was minimal, with his crowning achievement probably being the Battle of the Bulge. Patton proved himself to be to be quite competent, and he certainly might have been one of the best if given the chance.

SNIP

SNIP

That it did. good old fashioned british ingenuity. Of course, the only reason they needed Patton there was to make the germans think it was important XD
Still, neither Monty or Patton were as good as Rommel. Its a shame what happened to Rommel though. He didn't deserve what happened to him.

I think it would have been interesting to give Patton and Rommel both fully supplied, fully trained soldiers and see what happened. Alas, in war, that hardly happens (If it does, someones made a mistake).

From what I've read, Patton never got a chance to really open up and go on the Crusade he wanted. He spent most of his European career chasing a mauled foe.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Rommel is just plain awesome. And he didn't even like Hitler!

Most of the Wehrmacht didn't like Hitler.

 

[WrcklessIntent]

Ok im going to steal a qoute from a book that i really like that actually puts forth the reason why the allies won. There were 3 Reasons The allies had the resources to make war materials when the Axis had to scrape up whatever they had in their borders. 2nd they had the means to make war materials with said resources. Lastly they had the means to get the materials out to the front line and to the men. Cookie for whoever knows what book that quote is from. Also no not all Americans think that we single handedly won the war. Sure some of our history books embelish a bit but that was a pround moment in our history so we have a right to be proud. The Russians and The Brits both had to fight off the Nazis for a few years with out any major help from us.

 

[-Samurai-]

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.....

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.

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.

ummmm no no go look up the definition of ignorance and get back to me on this one.....

The fact is that is exactly what most Americans think, a fact to which you admit in YOU'RE OWN POST lol

So yeh its what you are all taught as you say, hence why most people think it making my statement all the more true....

I didn't say its makes them bad people but the fact is that's what a good majority of Americans think whether it be due to not so broad coverage at school or patriotic loyalty but its true none the less so thanks for the amusing attempt at an insult all the same but while you and the good majority of intelligent Americans on this site know the facts as they are most Americans simply put don't and my opinions on this are ironically enough formed mostly through talking about it with my American friends who said pretty much the same as me, but with that said i think the British OVER play what we did in the war, patriotism does nothing but amuse me with its pointlessness.

Your first post implied that all Americans think that way. Now you say most think that way. See the difference?

Ignorance is lack of knowledge. You have a lack of knowledge on the subject of Americans and their thoughts and feelings on this subject(obviously). You need to look up the definition.

I think you need to learn how to properly word your opinion, instead of passing it off as facts you gathered while speaking to a few Americans. You cant exactly claim an entire country of people is one way simply because a few of your friends are from there, and agree with you.

My post wasn't meant to be insulting. So as far as an amusing attempt, I don't know what you're talking about. Had I wanted to insult you, you'd know it.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

I think it would have been interesting to give Patton and Rommel both fully supplied, fully trained soldiers and see what happened. Alas, in war, that hardly happens (If it does, someones made a mistake).

From what I've read, Patton never got a chance to really open up and go on the Crusade he wanted. He spent most of his European career chasing a mauled foe.

That is true, Patton never really got a chance to prove himself on the same scale as Montgomery. Its his lack of doing anything really that notable during the war, at least until the battle of the bulge, that makes me think Montgomery was the better commander. Patton never had to be associated with things such as Market Garden. I would like to see what would have happened if the allies had gone with Patton in 44 but honestly, I don't think he could have done much better.
I think Rommel would have won in the above situation you present though. He had far more experience.

Rommel is just plain awesome. And he didn't even like Hitler!

Nope. He was implicated in the bomb plot to kill Hitler. Thus the reason for him being suicided.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Ok im going to steal a qoute from a book that i really like that actually puts forth the reason why the allies won. There were 3 Reasons The allies had the resources to make war materials when the Axis had to scrape up whatever they had in their borders. 2nd they had the means to make war materials with said resources. Lastly they had the means to get the materials out to the front line and to the men. Cookie for whoever knows what book that quote is from. Also no not all Americans think that we single handedly won the war. Sure some of our history books embelish a bit but that was a pround moment in our history so we have a right to be proud. The Russians and The Brits both had to fight off the Nazis for a few years with out any major help from us.

Do I get a bonus cookie for imagining that read by Alan Alda just like the Audiobook version?

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

That is true, Patton never really got a chance to prove himself on the same scale as Montgomery. Its his lack of doing anything really that notable during the war, at least until the battle of the bulge, that makes me think Montgomery was the better commander. Patton never had to be associated with things such as Market Garden. I would like to see what would have happened if the allies had gone with Patton in 44 but honestly, I don't think he could have done much better.
I think Rommel would have won in the above situation you present though. He had far more experience.

I think they would have both bled their infantry white and then slugged it out with tanks going on loose stragetic plans that didn't have much use except for maxims about maintaining maximum operational manuverability.

 

[Yeager942]

As hippy-sounding as it is (And I...hate...hippies *twitch*), all sides of the Allies played major roles in contributing to the downfall of Fascist Europe. But I gotta say that Stalin's execution of 3/4th of his officer corp before the war was just hilarious.

 

[Cody211282]

awesome is Churchill.

After Churchill tried to have Australian troops returning home diverted to India to defend it against the Japanese despite the fact Australia was under just as much if not more threat from Japan, I wouldn't call him "awesome" I'd call him a "fuckwit".

I do believe he was the only one with balls big enough to stop Hitlers advance before the USA joined, that's rather badass to me.

 

[HerrBobo]

I think it would have been interesting to give Patton and Rommel both fully supplied, fully trained soldiers and see what happened. Alas, in war, that hardly happens (If it does, someones made a mistake).

Agreed. Patton was good, no doubt. However, he always had superior forces then the Germans.

Neither are my top General of the war though, no, its not Monty either, or MacArthur......

Its, Zhukov!

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

But I gotta say that Stalin's execution of 3/4th of his officer corp before the war was just hilarious.

Considering the state of the Soviet forces at the time it wouldn't have made a difference if he did or not. "Feed untrained, barely armed (if at all) conscripts into the woodchipper until it clogs up" doesn't exactly take a military genius to come up with. Even Zhukov had to stick with that general plan until the USSR amassed enough materiel to make a difference.