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

[sketch_zeppelin]

From what i understand, the british acted as an intellegence and infultration support for the U.S. They knew the lay of the land better than the americans and had been fighting the war longer. so while they weren't able to go toe to toe with the axis they did all they could to help the "yanks" along.

My guess while you don't hear too much about the brits other than the RAF, is that most of their job required stealth so if everyone knew what the fuck they we're up to then they would'nt being doing their jobs right.

 

[Warforger]

The Brits were still very weak from WWI. Be that as it may; they did as much as any other country. In history the US usually shows up late, boast lower mortality rates than other countries, and then declares they won the war. Hell, even when we lose we declare victory!

What defines "late" and what defines "going in an winning the war"? I mean its not like the war had a set time like a basketball game. Most of these years where Britain was "fighting" in both WW's was mostly the same thing, you could just copy and paste what happened in 1915 and compared it to 1917 and little would've changed.

Take WWI, in 1917 the Germans finally got a break in the French/British defense with the influx of troops, due to Britain losing its naval edge with the German U-Boats terrorizing shipping Britain was weeks away from starving the Germans may have actually won, that is until they ticked off America, and America with its large population amassed enough troops to not only stop the German advance, but actually push it back at the SAME TIME, the Germans were dumbfounded about how fast the troops have gotten there and how fast they got pushed back, the Germans then saw the prospects and surrendered. So I wouldn't exactly call it "dropping in late"

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

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.

No the Brits don't have a land border with Germany, but they stuck out the fight despite the fact that their cities were being regularly bombed by the Luftwaffe. The RAF defended the skies of Britain, which lead to Hitler turning his attention to Russia, which play a major part in his downfall. I understand that the French aren't all a bunch of pussies who surender at the first sign of danger. In WWI they were a major factor in holding the Germans back. The main reason why the French collasped so soon was that they were fighting like WWI while the Germans were using Blitzkrieg tactics on them. So the French pulled back to create a line of defense... which the Germans schwerpunkted their way through. That happening a couple times made the French forces fully retreat. Plus they didn't really hold on that long either. Vichy France signed a peace treaty with the Germans and Paris was given up so that a battle wouldn't be fought in it. The French resistance did help annoy the occupying France and Free French forces continued on the fight as well, both of whom are generally marginalized as well. My point was that the Brits decided to continue on the fight while some of the French (Vichy) decided to bug out early.

In WWI they were the only thing holding the Germans back. The Brits were under seige by German subs, so they couldn't get any supplies or men to the front. Also, the French never gave up Paris, they always seemed to push the line back no matter what. Then, after a year of preperation the US came and mopped up all the 3rd reservists (not very well trained and in their 40's to 50's) of the German Schlieffen plan (Or as you stated Blitzkreig).

Yeah I understand that. The stuff with Vichy France, Paris, and Blitzkreig was about WWII. Not WWI. I definately have to give credit to the French for doing most of work in that war.
Just clearing that all up for you.

 

[RooftopAssassin]

The Brits were still very weak from WWI. Be that as it may; they did as much as any other country. In history the US usually shows up late, boast lower mortality rates than other countries, and then declares they won the war. Hell, even when we lose we declare victory!

What defines "late" and what defines "going in an winning the war"? I mean its not like the war had a set time like a basketball game. Most of these years where Britain was "fighting" in both WW's was mostly the same thing, you could just copy and paste what happened in 1915 and compared it to 1917 and little would've changed.

Take WWI, in 1917 the Germans finally got a break in the French/British defense with the influx of troops, due to Britain losing its naval edge with the German U-Boats terrorizing shipping Britain was weeks away from starving the Germans may have actually won, that is until they ticked off America, and America with its large population amassed enough troops to not only stop the German advance, but actually push it back at the SAME TIME, the Germans were dumbfounded about how fast the troops have gotten there and how fast they got pushed back, the Germans then saw the prospects and surrendered. So I wouldn't exactly call it "dropping in late"

Like I said, we came in late. France was pleading for help long before we got there and the UK was under siege for weeks, but we still ignored it. All it took to get us there was the killing of some US citizens and a telegram to Mexico from Germany. I mean, sure they may not have won without us, but look at countries like Japan, they took minimal casualties and held the Germans from capturing more resources and they also came in late. I'm not saying late as in arriving in 1918 when this started in 1914. I'm talking about ignoring the fact that it was happening completely until it started to affect us.

If we showed up in 1914 instead of 1918, you think we would've won? After losing that many men; Germany was tired. The U.S. was straw that broke the camels back.

 

[TheRealGoochman]

The British played a huge part in World War II, without their army and navy Africa would have fallen.....without England in the game D-Day would not happen (no proper staging area)

Also A HUGE part that the British played was in espionage....the British code breakers and spies played vital roles in obtaining the information needed for many of the big allied operations of World War II to happen......even during D-day (and before) England had double agents feeding false information back to Bertesgarten that D-day was happening but was going to take part after Normandy somewhere else (that is one of the big reasons why Hitler ordered his panzers held back).
Also England played a major role in the French Resistance providing the French with weapons, supplies, and even secret messages that were broadcast over the BBC. The French Resistance was vital for Overlord to come to be, and England gave the French the means of doing what they could to retake their homeland.

There are many many many many more tidbits in which the British played major roles in (*cough* Norway and putting a MAJOR halt of the German development of the Atom Bomb by disrupting the transfers of "Heavy Water" and other vital materials from Norway into Germany*cough*)
So nobody should say that "we saved your ass in WW2" BS....the truth is, without England we probably would not be able to be as successful (if @ all) in World War II, EVERYONE played their part

And the comments saying that we came in late and ignored cries of help, think about it, we were just BARELY coming out of a depression (In fact I think the 40s would have been awful if Japan's attack did not boost our economy....and don't say "well then we should have gotten involved" because if we got involved without our own cause (Pearl Harbor) we would not have the enthusiasm and patriotism that we had thus hampering our numbers, supplies, and above all moral), our army was not fit to fight (we almost had no army at all), and the risk the US was taking by sending supplies to England was great already (a lot of our supply ships were sunk on route) The United States was in no condition to get involved with a war with a power whose army was unmatched and no safe staging ground on European soil to engage it.

My views/WWII history buff coming out to say "Hello"

 

[acosn]

Mayhaps I spoke badly.

No, the Russians had shit. Bad tanks (saying they got better isn't saying much when the rest of the world was demonstrating well over what a modern tank at the time entailed), bad guns (for a similar purpose the Russian versions of other allied weapons (IE: main infantry rifle, SMG, ect) typically had far too many moving parts and were typically prone to jamming, or being far less accurate), bad tactics (see below).

They had numbers, and they didn't even use them effectively. Fighting battles where numerically you outnumber your opponent severely, and winning but only with staggering losses says very little.

There were a lot of mistakes on the part of the Germans. They all mounted up and basically fucked them over. The implications of a WW2 German war machine operated by someone who had a grasp of how to actually fight a war (rather than a fucktard like hitler) is scary.

 

[RooftopAssassin]

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.

No the Brits don't have a land border with Germany, but they stuck out the fight despite the fact that their cities were being regularly bombed by the Luftwaffe. The RAF defended the skies of Britain, which lead to Hitler turning his attention to Russia, which play a major part in his downfall. I understand that the French aren't all a bunch of pussies who surender at the first sign of danger. In WWI they were a major factor in holding the Germans back. The main reason why the French collasped so soon was that they were fighting like WWI while the Germans were using Blitzkrieg tactics on them. So the French pulled back to create a line of defense... which the Germans schwerpunkted their way through. That happening a couple times made the French forces fully retreat. Plus they didn't really hold on that long either. Vichy France signed a peace treaty with the Germans and Paris was given up so that a battle wouldn't be fought in it. The French resistance did help annoy the occupying France and Free French forces continued on the fight as well, both of whom are generally marginalized as well. My point was that the Brits decided to continue on the fight while some of the French (Vichy) decided to bug out early.

In WWI they were the only thing holding the Germans back. The Brits were under seige by German subs, so they couldn't get any supplies or men to the front. Also, the French never gave up Paris, they always seemed to push the line back no matter what. Then, after a year of preperation the US came and mopped up all the 3rd reservists (not very well trained and in their 40's to 50's) of the German Schlieffen plan (Or as you stated Blitzkreig).

Yeah I understand that. The stuff with Vichy France, Paris, and Blitzkreig was about WWII. Not WWI. I definately have to give credit to the French for doing most of work in that war.
Just clearing that all up for you.

Oh, cool thought you were talking about The War To End All Wars there for a second. Yes, your right about that my friend. Hitler made numerous mistakes, if you ask me, it was all the meth.

 

[lacktheknack]

Your teacher is a real life troll.

My consolations.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Mayhaps I spoke badly.

No, the Russians had shit. Bad tanks (saying they got better isn't saying much when the rest of the world was demonstrating well over what a modern tank at the time entailed), bad guns (for a similar purpose the Russian versions of other allied weapons (IE: main infantry rifle, SMG, ect) typically had far too many moving parts and were typically prone to jamming, or being far less accurate), bad tactics (see below).

They had numbers, and they didn't even use them effectively. Fighting battles where numerically you outnumber your opponent severely, and winning but only with staggering losses says very little.

There were a lot of mistakes on the part of the Germans. They all mounted up and basically fucked them over. The implications of a WW2 German war machine operated by someone who had a grasp of how to actually fight a war (rather than a fucktard like hitler) is scary.

The t-34 was made in 1940... 5 years before the war ended.

The air force was MASSIVE, with air craft that were AT LEAST average, and pilots who knew what they were doing half way through the war, and did it pretty damn well.

Sure, they had a tendency for bad tactics, and Germany made many mistakes, but don't discount the Russian equipment on the account of bias. Seriously, wikipedia can teach you five different ways you're wrong, let alone picking up a 10 dollar history book. Hell, I have six books on my shelf, let alone the ones in storage, that disprove you flat out.

 

[TheRealGoochman]

Mayhaps I spoke badly.

No, the Russians had shit. Bad tanks (saying they got better isn't saying much when the rest of the world was demonstrating well over what a modern tank at the time entailed), bad guns (for a similar purpose the Russian versions of other allied weapons (IE: main infantry rifle, SMG, ect) typically had far too many moving parts and were typically prone to jamming, or being far less accurate), bad tactics (see below).

They had numbers, and they didn't even use them effectively. Fighting battles where numerically you outnumber your opponent severely, and winning but only with staggering losses says very little.

There were a lot of mistakes on the part of the Germans. They all mounted up and basically fucked them over. The implications of a WW2 German war machine operated by someone who had a grasp of how to actually fight a war (rather than a fucktard like hitler) is scary.

True the Russians were not well equipped/organized, however the Russian T-34 was a powerful opposite of the German Panzer IV--->Tiger....the German tanks broke down on Russian soil more than the Russian's did, and about the Russian guns jamming......Germans would choose a PPSH over the MP-40....the MP-40 would jam constantly in the Russian conditions while the PPSH could take a heck of a beating and still work fine.

I do agree though with Hitler being dumb, he should not have attacked Russia in the first place (or not until he had a foothold on England) but he was so hotheaded and......well stupid that he totally ignored his top generals and decided to attack Russia anyway......in the words of Eddie Izzard "Hitler never played Risk when he was a kid"

 

[AgDr_ODST]

bloody ignorance pure and simple. hell despite me being an American who you would typically think thought that our country pushed back the jerries and the japs all on our own. I could tell you among other things that the Brits took the north half of france as we liberated Europe. and that a load of brave aussies fought the germans in Africa

 

[Commissar Sae]

Mayhaps I spoke badly.

No, the Russians had shit. Bad tanks (saying they got better isn't saying much when the rest of the world was demonstrating well over what a modern tank at the time entailed), bad guns (for a similar purpose the Russian versions of other allied weapons (IE: main infantry rifle, SMG, ect) typically had far too many moving parts and were typically prone to jamming, or being far less accurate), bad tactics (see below).

They had numbers, and they didn't even use them effectively. Fighting battles where numerically you outnumber your opponent severely, and winning but only with staggering losses says very little.

There were a lot of mistakes on the part of the Germans. They all mounted up and basically fucked them over. The implications of a WW2 German war machine operated by someone who had a grasp of how to actually fight a war (rather than a fucktard like hitler) is scary.

I humbly disagree. As stated by another poster earlier, the Russian tanks were probably the best in the entire war (save maybe for the late German Tiger) The problem was that there was so few of them. Also you have to realise that modern tank tactics were essentially invented by the German high command. The Russian civil war had been fought on horseback so most of the Soviet Generals didn't know what to do against tanks. (Likewise you'll notice the French and the British doing poorly at first too.)

Russian uns were hardly sub-par. The Mosin-Nagant rifle was aging sure (since it was designed in 1891), but so were most bolt-action rifles. Hell compared to the Japanese Nambu type 94 pistol and most of the Japanese rifles really, it was a state of the art weapon. The PPhs-41 sub-machine gun was "very low-maintenance in combat environments." furthermore, German troops actually captured the PPhs-41 for their own use. The gun had several problems (the drum would jam, making reloading difficult and dropping it could cause it to discharge) but it was hardly the worst gun of the war.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Oh, cool thought you were talking about The War To End All Wars there for a second. Yes, your right about that my friend. Hitler made numerous mistakes, if you ask me, it was all the meth.

Dude he WAS on some pretty weird "medicine" at the end there. I always remember the film of him shaking the hands of this group of militia made up of a bunch of teenagers, and you can see his other hand just shaking uncontrollably. Apparently he had a "doctor" whip him up a bunch of "cures" for some illnesses he had, but they just made things worse.

 

[RooftopAssassin]

Oh, cool thought you were talking about The War To End All Wars there for a second. Yes, your right about that my friend. Hitler made numerous mistakes, if you ask me, it was all the meth.

Dude he WAS on some pretty weird "medicine" at the end there. I always remember the film of him shaking the hands of this group of militia made up of a bunch of teenagers, and you can see his other hand just shaking uncontrollably. Apparently he had a "doctor" whip him up a bunch of "cures" for some illnesses he had, but they just made things worse.

It was well documented that he had his "doctor" fix him up to [b/]FIVE[/b] times a day with his special "meds". Even though he preached purity and personal wellness for your country, looks like he couldn't keep his hands of the hillbilly special.

 

[JWAN]

Really, saying that any side didn't do anything is just naive.

The French held the Germans up whilst we ran bravely away, abandoning most of our equipment. Tally ho I say!

And around 90% of German casualties originated from the Russian fronts, so Russia gets a lot of praise.

In fact, the first real fight the Americans had with the Germans, in North Africa, was at the Kasserine Pass. I believe Rommel mocked them.

In Kassarine pass control was placed under a British commander named Harold Alexander. Also remember to get to the Germans we had to fight through the French.

 

[Terramax]

snip

Your teacher's watched too many Hollywood movies I guess.

P.S. hope you're doing okay with that volcano erupting an all.

 

[Ungenericteen]

The british helped win tha battle fo bugle lead the allies until America got involve, st.nasar, sunk the bismark, stopped the only ship like the bismark from being able to dock, all of north africa, and some stuff that americans can't know because, they don't want us knowing that the british army is better. (yes I am american, raised in the U.S. Virgin Islands, so we did know alot of british families)

 

[Littlee300]

I basically view it as a trinity. Without Britain, America or Russia then Hitler probably would've won. Each side helped out the other in some way.

As for why some people say that, I don't know. Either ignorance or ridiculously high expectations of what we should've done.

Nah the war would of lasted up to 10 years more without USA. Russia did the biggest amount of work out of every country though without them it would of been bad.

 

[mkg]

I am an American soldier and we are very proud of our military heritage. WHile it is true that America was the turning point in the war, I think your teacher is kind of stupid. The british navy was key in the assistance of clearing German U-boats from its blockade of the north atlantic, the British also worked closely together with US troops in north africa, france, and most importantly in India. The British also were the brain childs behind alot of the more covert operations with the office of the OSS. Mind you, this is before the US army had formally established their 19 series special operations groups (green berets), or many of our other covert offices. Plus the fact that the Germans were never able to actually gain any foothold on the isle of England itself. England is one of our closest allies even today and I believe their troops are worth just as much as ours, I've even had the pleasure of operating with some of them.

As for Russia, fuck Russia. Russian aggression from the beggining of the war would have stunted Hitler's growth in Europe immediately. Instead, they signed a treaty with the Germans assuming they would 'split' europe-asia when it was all said and done. If not for Hitler's underestimating the sheer strength of numbers and tenacity of the russians, the Nazis would have had an entire 1,000+ miles knocked off their frontlines.